Amok -
It's probably good here to understand the time frames in which the gospels were written. The first written gospel appeared about 30 years after Jesus. This was the gospel of Thomas, which no longer exists (or at least in its entirety, I forget). Of the 4 gospels in the new testament, the first was Mark, which was written about 40 years after the fact, followed by Matthew (about 60 years after). John was the last, written about 75 years later.
As I recall (I'm too lazy tonight to go look it up), there were a total of 24 gospels written, 4 of which made the 'final cut'. The epistles, which follow the gospels in the actual book, were really written before the gospels themselves.
I remember reading somewhere that this time lag was due to the early Christians believing the second coming was immanent and therefore there was no need to write anything down. Only when the oral stories were in their 3rd generation of telling did they begin to think that maybe the second coming was not around the corner and they'd better write the stuff down. However, since revelations was not written until the turn of the next century, it's unclear how big the idea of a second coming was in the beginning and whether this was the real motivation for the time lag in writing stuff down.
There are also lots of epistles (letters) which didn't make it into the final new testament.
Just a little historical perspective ....
birdan: The "time frames" in which the gospels were written is really of no significant value(if your "timetable" is even correct). The reason for this could best be summed up in the following statement by Jesus Christ Himself:
"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."(John 14:25-26)
God didn't rely on the memory of men, but rather on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."(John 14:25-26)
God didn't rely on the memory of men, but rather on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
birdan
The gospel of Thomas is available though it is not complete, this copy having been assembled from scraps of several scrolls found in the 1940's around the Dead Sea. The translation and assembly was resisted by the RCC until the early 90's and this material has become available lately. I bought the book written by the principle translators at Borders several months ago. I have it packed away right now(due to my recent move and temp disability.) I will try to find it in the next few days, it is an interesting and very different take on Jesus's life, more earthy and less mystic. For example, in the passages that are intact Jesus never claims he is divine. I cannot say that is true of the passages which are missing or incomplete but the general tone is similar to the Greek Gnostic school of thought rather than the Jewish Jehovah, fire and brimstone school. Having been written within a generation of Jesus's death, evidently by the son of Thomas,the disciple, I would tend to regard it as more accurate. What we have of the book is simply the sayings of Jesus, no miracles, no rising from the dead, no virgin birth, just the words straight from the source, written down about 30 years later, as dictated from father to son. The book ends at the cross with Jesus's death.
Grumpy
The gospel of Thomas is available though it is not complete, this copy having been assembled from scraps of several scrolls found in the 1940's around the Dead Sea. The translation and assembly was resisted by the RCC until the early 90's and this material has become available lately. I bought the book written by the principle translators at Borders several months ago. I have it packed away right now(due to my recent move and temp disability.) I will try to find it in the next few days, it is an interesting and very different take on Jesus's life, more earthy and less mystic. For example, in the passages that are intact Jesus never claims he is divine. I cannot say that is true of the passages which are missing or incomplete but the general tone is similar to the Greek Gnostic school of thought rather than the Jewish Jehovah, fire and brimstone school. Having been written within a generation of Jesus's death, evidently by the son of Thomas,the disciple, I would tend to regard it as more accurate. What we have of the book is simply the sayings of Jesus, no miracles, no rising from the dead, no virgin birth, just the words straight from the source, written down about 30 years later, as dictated from father to son. The book ends at the cross with Jesus's death.
Grumpy
QUOTE
-A common belief among early Darwinian's, Master Race pursuers, Hitler, etc.
Again, stop trying to include non-relevant moral issues with a scientific thery. Evolution has nothing to do with Hitler and similar pursuits.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
-A common belief among early Darwinian's, Master Race pursuers, Hitler, etc. |
Again, stop trying to include non-relevant moral issues with a scientific thery. Evolution has nothing to do with Hitler and similar pursuits.
-I'm watching a Hitler movie right now - it's in German - I think it's called 'Hitler, The Fall', about his last few days alive. In one scene he became very upset, because he knew he was losing (and would soon commit suicide). He lamented the irony of it all by saying that the 'inferior animals would win', and 'the betrayal of it all'. It has been said that Hitler was a proponent of evolution - perhaps evolution for Hitler and his vision of a master race didn't evolve fast enough - for he obviously was not superior to the rest of us. It has been argued that Hitler was a Christian or an atheist. From my point of view, he certainly did not follow the Bible I read, and he has nothing in common with any Christian I know. Not that I'm saying he identifies more closely with the moral beliefs of an atheist - I'm sure he doesn't. I think we could put Hitler in a box and a few other loonies from the past and the present.
You view of Hitler, like ID/CS, is in error. It is well documented just how much of a xian he was, how he quoted the xian bible and believed he was doing the work of the xian god. He belongs in the same category as all true believers who think they are doing the xian god’s work here on Earth.
QUOTE
5. Here it seems he is trying to indicate that one population is smarter than another, specifically the African populations, but he realizes the danger in doing so.
-Again, it all goes back to a master or superior race idea that is disgusting.
-The fact that this kind of research is even being done calls into question the whole purpose behind the design of the evolution theory - if we can call it that.
-Again, it all goes back to a master or superior race idea that is disgusting.
-The fact that this kind of research is even being done calls into question the whole purpose behind the design of the evolution theory - if we can call it that.
Simplistic PC thinking and an example of why the neutered xian mindset is not the desired one for pursuing research. Any xian calling racial classifications as “disgusting” is a hypocrite especially when you take into account theist who have used and continue to use the xian bible and other religious tomes to support he ideal of racial superiority.
If research proves that a group of humans have partially specialized in a general category over the rest of the average population, pointing out such is not racists. Using that information with the mindset of superior and inferior is. I must point out how it is amazing just how pre-occupied you seem to be with race SoLoved. Do you and must you view everything though such a filter as race?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. Here it seems he is trying to indicate that one population is smarter than another, specifically the African populations, but he realizes the danger in doing so. -Again, it all goes back to a master or superior race idea that is disgusting. -The fact that this kind of research is even being done calls into question the whole purpose behind the design of the evolution theory - if we can call it that. |
Simplistic PC thinking and an example of why the neutered xian mindset is not the desired one for pursuing research. Any xian calling racial classifications as “disgusting” is a hypocrite especially when you take into account theist who have used and continue to use the xian bible and other religious tomes to support he ideal of racial superiority.
If research proves that a group of humans have partially specialized in a general category over the rest of the average population, pointing out such is not racists. Using that information with the mindset of superior and inferior is. I must point out how it is amazing just how pre-occupied you seem to be with race SoLoved. Do you and must you view everything though such a filter as race?
You can argue if you wish, but this is my belief and my opinion, which I'm entitled to.
Exactly, a faith-based belief and one not based on rational thought, must like your adherence to the xian myth. With such a neutered mindset, you and similar people would be and are detrimental to science, not an aid to it.
QUOTE
Evidence of design is proof of the Designer.
Circular reasoning again? Can you do no better than this for a science? This points to the fact that ID is not science, but a religion based ideology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evidence of design is proof of the Designer. |
Circular reasoning again? Can you do no better than this for a science? This points to the fact that ID is not science, but a religion based ideology.
It doesn't matter if they are seen as inexorably linked together.
Yes it does matter. If ID and the xian region are linked, then ID is not a theory. You keep claiming that the xian religion and the xian bible is the infallible word of the xian god. If ID is an extension of the infallible word of the xian god, then it is religion, nor science.
QUOTE
My faith in God may not prove the theory of Intelligent Design, but your science will.
“My” science? All science is science unless of course your view of existence relies on something other than science like say the xian mythos. Very telling SoLoved.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My faith in God may not prove the theory of Intelligent Design, but your science will. |
“My” science? All science is science unless of course your view of existence relies on something other than science like say the xian mythos. Very telling SoLoved.
ID is based on the assumption that evidence of design is evidence of a Designer.
Yes, an assumption based on the xian mythos. This is not the foundation of a theory, but a faith.
QUOTE
Christianity is not a myth. It is a fact.
I never claimed your religion is a myth, but based upon one. Also, ID is based upon that same mythos. Such an ideology cannot be the basis for science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Christianity is not a myth. It is a fact. |
I never claimed your religion is a myth, but based upon one. Also, ID is based upon that same mythos. Such an ideology cannot be the basis for science.
This is a whole nuther subject. The infallibility of God is based on faith.
OH, so the word of the xian god is not REALLY infallible to any form of analysis, but is so if you have faith. That’s rational…
QUOTE
We believe that other cultures and religions have the same stories, although changed a bit due to hand me down story telling, because they ultimately came from the same two people created by God in the beginning.
So, the infallible word of the xian god has been altered by man so that there are different versions of the infallible word of the xian god. Do you, Duke and newguy still want to claim that there are no contradictions in the xian bible considering it has been “changed a bit” as you profess?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We believe that other cultures and religions have the same stories, although changed a bit due to hand me down story telling, because they ultimately came from the same two people created by God in the beginning. |
So, the infallible word of the xian god has been altered by man so that there are different versions of the infallible word of the xian god. Do you, Duke and newguy still want to claim that there are no contradictions in the xian bible considering it has been “changed a bit” as you profess?
We are not asking for the Bible to be taught in public schools.
Yes you are. The pseudoscience of ID is a direct extension of the xian mythos. You even stated that is did not matter if they were linked, but is does. IF ID is nothing more than an extension of the xian mythos, then it to is religion and not to be taught in government schools.
QUOTE
More people believe in a God than don't.
If ID is taught instead of evolution - there would be less people offended than if it were reversed.
If ID is taught instead of evolution - there would be less people offended than if it were reversed.
Science and fact are not popularity contests. Offence is also irrelevant to facts. IF someone cannot face the facts of reality, then that becomes a personal problem.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More people believe in a God than don't. If ID is taught instead of evolution - there would be less people offended than if it were reversed. |
Science and fact are not popularity contests. Offence is also irrelevant to facts. IF someone cannot face the facts of reality, then that becomes a personal problem.
In other words, evolution offends most people. ID does not.
So - you are trying to make me feel guilty or whatever for somehow not including all these other views - but my way is less offensive than your way.
No, evolution only offends the rabbit followers of the xian myth who fear any dissention. How closed-minded do you have to be to imply that you must not teach fact in order not to offend? That is the sign of a scientific mindset?
QUOTE
Since you asked the questions from both a ID and a CS perspective - you have received an integrated reply. If you wish a purely scientific reply to future questions - you will want to seperate the two.
This is humorous. You cannot separate the two. You even admit that ID and the xian mythos were linked. It is an extension of religion, not a scientific pursuit.
Grumpy answered the rest of your post.
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 10 2005, 06:28 PM)
RealityCheck: That "book of mine" gives other "choices" as well. You are "free" to follow Satan, your "god", with consequences, of course. I'll honor your "choice". I'm innocent of your blood.
Spoken like a true believer. Choose free will and burn or become a sheep and live as someone else determines you must.
But remember, he loves you.....
Elvis never did no drugs!
Spoken like a true believer. Choose free will and burn or become a sheep and live as someone else determines you must.
But remember, he loves you.....
Elvis never did no drugs!
Geez, go away for the weekend, and miss like 4 pages of posts. Holy crap!
Newguy, after seeing all the indepth discussion on quotations and such I just want to ask you this.
Why use the quotations when you could have typed "I will be away on business for a few days".
I know it is being picky, but considering you use bold type, and quotes so often, it makes it confusing to determine what is literal, what is sarcasm, etc.... Feel free to keep using them as much as possible, but in my opinion it adds confusion to your posts. In My Opinion, so it can't be wrong.....just a suggestion from me to you, no attack.
Soloved, I have never seen you flip flop more than these past few days I was away. At one time you said christianity should be taught in schools for all of those poor children who don't take them to sunday school.....now you think religion should be up to the parents only? I am confused....which one is it?
And Jerry Duke, I think Arthur said it very nicely. You should "save" (note I used quotations to point out that in my mind finding jesus is not neccessarily saving) the people who need it more. I live a moral life, and I sure don't think I need saving. Your judgements of me are irrelevant to me, so why would I get "saved" when I don't think I need to. I am exersicing my free will, and the mind that I have been given (from wherever). I would rather read things for myself and think critically if they are accurate or not.
I don't have the time to go through each post point by point, and thankfully, others are going through them much more thoroughly than I would anyways.
Newguy, after seeing all the indepth discussion on quotations and such I just want to ask you this.
Why use the quotations when you could have typed "I will be away on business for a few days".
I know it is being picky, but considering you use bold type, and quotes so often, it makes it confusing to determine what is literal, what is sarcasm, etc.... Feel free to keep using them as much as possible, but in my opinion it adds confusion to your posts. In My Opinion, so it can't be wrong.....just a suggestion from me to you, no attack.
Soloved, I have never seen you flip flop more than these past few days I was away. At one time you said christianity should be taught in schools for all of those poor children who don't take them to sunday school.....now you think religion should be up to the parents only? I am confused....which one is it?
And Jerry Duke, I think Arthur said it very nicely. You should "save" (note I used quotations to point out that in my mind finding jesus is not neccessarily saving) the people who need it more. I live a moral life, and I sure don't think I need saving. Your judgements of me are irrelevant to me, so why would I get "saved" when I don't think I need to. I am exersicing my free will, and the mind that I have been given (from wherever). I would rather read things for myself and think critically if they are accurate or not.
I don't have the time to go through each post point by point, and thankfully, others are going through them much more thoroughly than I would anyways.
I remembered one more thing I was meaning to say. Soloved, you claim evidence of a design is proof of a designer, but "evidence of design" is very subjective. Take for example machined Stainless steel. Today I was using a stainless steel "substrate holder" (name of a tool, you may or may not be familar with such terminology) in the lab. This substrate holder has been machinced to be accurate to within micrometers, yet when I viewed it under a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) at those same scales it did not appear to look designed at all. All I could see appeared to me to look like random scratches. Now, I know this thing was designed, yet starting with that assumption the evidence appeared to not have it look designed (I also looked at this before I read all of the posts, so I wasn't looking to see it that way.....although you even stated that you can look for it that way). So based on your 'scientific principles' I can conclude with 100% accuracy that this was not designed. Hey, I followed your rules didn't I?
Steveo: I agree that you are being picky, but here it goes one more time...
I put "on business" in quotes to emphasize it so that no one would think that I was "in hiding". I hope that finally settles it. By the way, my "quotes" must be really "hitting the mark"...seeing how much they "stir up".
I put "on business" in quotes to emphasize it so that no one would think that I was "in hiding". I hope that finally settles it. By the way, my "quotes" must be really "hitting the mark"...seeing how much they "stir up".
QUOTE
Steveo: I agree that you are being picky, but here it goes one more time...
I put "on business" in quotes to emphasize it so that no one would think that I was "in hiding". I hope that finally settles it. By the way, my "quotes" must be really "hitting the mark"...seeing how much they "stir up".
I put "on business" in quotes to emphasize it so that no one would think that I was "in hiding". I hope that finally settles it. By the way, my "quotes" must be really "hitting the mark"...seeing how much they "stir up".
I wouldn't agree that they are hitting the mark because they are stirring things up. Like I said before, I find the excessive quotations to be a confusion, not a clarifier. So if your goal is to confuse the people you are trying to communicate to, then yes, you are hitting the mark very well. I have found that being picky in such seemingly silly things is important if one wants be a scientist. Just like a lawyer writing a contract has to be very clear with his/her words so that they can't be interpreted differently, a scientist must be very clear, precise, and picky with both his/her experiments (to make sure they are done properly, and are to be considered valid) and with their writing to make sure that it isn't misinterpreted to mean things that it does not mean. Although Soloved has a talent at that better than anyone.
Steveo: This will be my final post on the topic of "quotes". As I said, and as you can easily find by going to www.britannica.com, one of several proper uses of "quotations marks" is to "clarify something". If you, or anyone else for that matter, are not familiar with all the proper uses for "quotation marks", then I would suggest you get a quick education on the matter. It's really not all that hard to grasp, you know. Now that it's been properly explained for the umpteenth time, I hope you won't be "confused" any more by my "quotes" in the future. By the way, if you are "confused", then why not just simply ask me what I meant. That would certainly take a lot less time than all of these "rabbit trails". Am I really to believe that my being away "on business" CONFUSED you?!? Give it a break!
"Here comes Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail..."
"Here comes Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail..."
It's a lot funnier if you imagine newguy doing rabbit ears in the air and over-emphasizing words when you read his posts....
I just stumbled across this thread while searching for info on "Intelligent Design". But here's my 2 cents worth...
ID doesn't really offer any answers... I mean, if things are so complex that they had to be designed, then by that same logic, the designer is so complex he/she/it had to be designed. And that designer is so complex that there had to be a more complex designer. It's an endless enigma.
And, if this is not a religious concept, why are there so many quotes from the bible in this thread?
ID doesn't really offer any answers... I mean, if things are so complex that they had to be designed, then by that same logic, the designer is so complex he/she/it had to be designed. And that designer is so complex that there had to be a more complex designer. It's an endless enigma.
And, if this is not a religious concept, why are there so many quotes from the bible in this thread?
Thanks, Grumpy, for the info on the Thomas gospel. Been a while since I've paid much attention to such matters. I'm just curious what relavence the other 20 gospels, numerous epistles, oral torah, etc. have to biblical literalists such as newguy, soloved, and davidduke. That it wasn't until about 325 A.D. that the 'current' bible started to come into existence (Jerome started the Latin Vulgate around 380 A.D.), and that happened through the efforts of Constantine (a non-christian until a controversial deathbed conversion) to solidify an expanding kingdom. I'm sure it's because god works in mysterious ways.
Anyway, I had mentioned before on one of these threads (they have become all alike to me and I have no desire to scroll through hundredlions of pages) that if ID was going to be taught in a classroom, then they might as well show the Matrix movies as a possible source of an intelligent designer. I hereby wish to back up that claim:
Exd 13:12 That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males [shall be] the LORD'S.
Exd 13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.
Exd 34:19 All that openeth the matrix [is] mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, [whether] ox or sheep, [that is male].
Num 3:12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;
Num 18:15 Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, [whether it be] of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.
Pretty prophetic, huh?
Bruce
P.S. Since they've just found 12,000 year old 'hobbits' in Indonesia, let's throw Lord of the Rings into the high school biology curricula too.
Anyway, I had mentioned before on one of these threads (they have become all alike to me and I have no desire to scroll through hundredlions of pages) that if ID was going to be taught in a classroom, then they might as well show the Matrix movies as a possible source of an intelligent designer. I hereby wish to back up that claim:
Exd 13:12 That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males [shall be] the LORD'S.
Exd 13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.
Exd 34:19 All that openeth the matrix [is] mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, [whether] ox or sheep, [that is male].
Num 3:12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;
Num 18:15 Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, [whether it be] of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.
Pretty prophetic, huh?
Bruce
P.S. Since they've just found 12,000 year old 'hobbits' in Indonesia, let's throw Lord of the Rings into the high school biology curricula too.
That was me above. Forgot to log in.
QUOTE (amok+Oct 11 2005, 07:53 PM)
It's a lot funnier if you imagine newguy doing rabbit ears in the air and over-emphasizing words when you read his posts....
Is there a little version of him (mini-xian) standing next to him mimicking all of his actions at the same time?
Is there a little version of him (mini-xian) standing next to him mimicking all of his actions at the same time?
QUOTE
Steveo: This will be my final post on the topic of "quotes". As I said, and as you can easily find by going to www.britannica.com, one of several proper uses of "quotations marks" is to "clarify something". If you, or anyone else for that matter, are not familiar with all the proper uses for "quotation marks", then I would suggest you get a quick education on the matter. It's really not all that hard to grasp, you know. Now that it's been properly explained for the umpteenth time, I hope you won't be "confused" any more by my "quotes" in the future. By the way, if you are "confused", then why not just simply ask me what I meant. That would certainly take a lot less time than all of these "rabbit trails". Am I really to believe that my being away "on business" CONFUSED you?!? Give it a break!
"Here comes Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail..."
"Here comes Peter Cottontail, hoppin' down the bunny trail..."
Ok, thats fine, if thats what they are ment to do, but what happens when what the writer means to be doing he is not doing? Is that the fault of the reader, or the writer? Or both? It is incredible how stupid this has become. My original post was to point out that saying you were away on business would severe the same purpose as being away "on business" but would not leave open to possibilty of misinterpretation. Have you ever heard some men talking and they say that they are away "on business" but what the really mean is that they are cheating on their wife? Well, I have, and that is a common usage that I have heard for it, and I didn't want you to false imply something like that, since from the other thread we know how much you prefer your wife. I do not take you for an adulter, so I was trying to offer some friendly advice...but instead this has turned into an attack on my reading comprehension, and on my intelligence. That is fine though, because I am PROUD of my intelligence (proud is in I have self esteem). I am simply offering a suggestion that overuse of something (quotations) to stress and emphasize a point, loses all emphasis when it is over used. Now, don't give me that crap about "go educate yourself if you don't understand" because I do understand, but IMO I feel that your overuse does the opposite effect of what your intentions are. I think we would all be better off if all of use posted more clearly so that their was less misunderstanding, and instead of posting on retarded garbage like this we could actually discuss the merits of intelligent design. These arguements we are having now are stupid, but I will still always have them, because being picky is a quality that me, as a scientist needs to maintain if I want to perform good science.
Evidence of Design is evidence of an Intelligent Designer
1. Everywhere we look there are clear signs of patterns and design
- while patterns can arise naturally, design requires a mind.
2. Since the beginnings of recorded history, man has known of a Creator/Designer being
- at various times throughout history, there have been those who would deny this
- however, it was not until the 1800s, when secular thinkers, propelled by the Darwinian theory of evolution and his unique brand of racist thinking, began to gain a foothold
3. Since about that time, Darwinians, Evolutionists, Secularists, Naturalists, Atheists, and others have attacked Christianity, ridiculing their intellect.
4. Things are beginning to change. Christian thinkers, Scientists, Mathematicians, Philosphers, and others
are shooting down the opposition, and beginning to question every dearly held evolutionary idea.
5. This is particularly true in the area of biology. For decades, Darwin's theory of evolution has been taught in public schools.
-But the fragile theory of evolution is now threatened by a growing band of scholars promoting Intelligent Design.
-Despite vigorous opposition, we are gaining ground, and we're sending evolutionists and its defenders into a state of panic
6. There is considerable evidence for Intelligent Design as I have posted in the various Creation/Evolution topics/threads here at PhysOrg.
Here are a few others and/or refreshers:
• The Big Bang http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm
• Anthropic principle http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm
• Irreducible complexity http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm
• Biological evidence http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm
• The Moon http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm
• Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
7. I may or may not agree with all of them, but the point is that there is definitely a Designer involved in the Creation of the Universe.
-While there is no evidence of macro-evolution - the entire basis of the evolutionary theory.
Here is Darwin - the founder of Evolution:
Darwin states in his own “Introduction” his reason for writing Descent: “The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.” Darwin continues, “…As I shall confine myself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail the differences between the several races [of man] – an enormous subject which has been fully discussed in many valuable works”
and also....
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man,” New York: Prometheus Books, c1998, pp.162,163.)
And in a moment, some quotes on what else is wrong with evolution.
SoLoved
1. Everywhere we look there are clear signs of patterns and design
- while patterns can arise naturally, design requires a mind.
2. Since the beginnings of recorded history, man has known of a Creator/Designer being
- at various times throughout history, there have been those who would deny this
- however, it was not until the 1800s, when secular thinkers, propelled by the Darwinian theory of evolution and his unique brand of racist thinking, began to gain a foothold
3. Since about that time, Darwinians, Evolutionists, Secularists, Naturalists, Atheists, and others have attacked Christianity, ridiculing their intellect.
4. Things are beginning to change. Christian thinkers, Scientists, Mathematicians, Philosphers, and others
are shooting down the opposition, and beginning to question every dearly held evolutionary idea.
5. This is particularly true in the area of biology. For decades, Darwin's theory of evolution has been taught in public schools.
-But the fragile theory of evolution is now threatened by a growing band of scholars promoting Intelligent Design.
-Despite vigorous opposition, we are gaining ground, and we're sending evolutionists and its defenders into a state of panic
6. There is considerable evidence for Intelligent Design as I have posted in the various Creation/Evolution topics/threads here at PhysOrg.
Here are a few others and/or refreshers:
• The Big Bang http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm
• Anthropic principle http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm
• Irreducible complexity http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm
• Biological evidence http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm
• The Moon http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm
• Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
7. I may or may not agree with all of them, but the point is that there is definitely a Designer involved in the Creation of the Universe.
-While there is no evidence of macro-evolution - the entire basis of the evolutionary theory.
Here is Darwin - the founder of Evolution:
Darwin states in his own “Introduction” his reason for writing Descent: “The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.” Darwin continues, “…As I shall confine myself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail the differences between the several races [of man] – an enormous subject which has been fully discussed in many valuable works”
and also....
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man,” New York: Prometheus Books, c1998, pp.162,163.)
And in a moment, some quotes on what else is wrong with evolution.
SoLoved
QUOTE
Quote by Grumpy - in the Making the Case for the Bible topic/thread:
Evolution is a science, not a book. Many books have been written on this subject, which ones do you consider to be in error?
Evolution is a science, not a book. Many books have been written on this subject, which ones do you consider to be in error?
What else is wrong with evolution? You asked Grumpy, well here it is.
Sorry if the length is objectionable - but I couldn't decide what to leave out.
1. "(Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1985):
"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence." (p.261)
"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (p.264)
"It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10 - 16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of machinery every constructed by man." (p.338)
"The twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian revolution. The social and political currents which have swept the world in the past eighty years would have been impossible without its intellectual sanction. … The influence of the evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative ides for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory … a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth." (p. 358)
2. "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Former: President of the Biological Society of Stassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French national Centre of Scientific Research, writing in "The Advocate," March 8, 1984, p. 17)
3. Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London, writes: "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ' I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981)
4. "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, 1979, pp.9ff)
5. "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator…" (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney Un Quadrant, Oct., 1982, p.44)
6. "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. … The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but no always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Past-President, French Academy of Science, "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.8)
7. Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist, Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University, Former Math Instructor at MIT, writing in "Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Darwin" (Tan Books and Publishers, 1988, pp.1,2) writes: "Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. … The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. …We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."
8. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980)
9. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, Title Page)
10. "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." (Malcom Muggeridge, Well-known Journalist and Philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo)
11. "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Loren Eiseley, PhD., writing in "Anthropology -- The Immense Journey," Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199)
12. The following citations are from I.L. Cohen's "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probability," New Research Publications, Inc., 1984. Cohen is a Mathematician, Researcher, a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, and an Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.)
"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction." (pp.6,7)
"…In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process." (p.8)
"…After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." (pp. 214-215)
"… every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong." (p.209)
"… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." (p. 210)
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution is blatantly racist, and it is bad science. It is time for "seed" change in education. It is time to stand up, to wise up, and to "Out the 'Darweenies.' Our children deserve it. "
--Mike Carrier, MA (New York University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)
All from one little website: http://www.goodschools.com/index.html
Need more?
I will be waiting for your brilliant, kind, and point by point reply.
Thanks,
SoLoved
Ah, now i see where all the racisim and hitler comments are coming from....
All i have to say about that website is the following quote from it's main page...
I for one, favor the flying spaghetti monster over ID, it has as much credability and evidence so far.
All i have to say about that website is the following quote from it's main page...
QUOTE
A 'Must-Read' new book: "From Darwin to Hitler"
Darwin's Descent--the Best Case Yet for Reparations
Darwin's Descent--the Best Case Yet for Reparations
I for one, favor the flying spaghetti monster over ID, it has as much credability and evidence so far.
soloved
Since you have decided to just spew regurgitated CSBS I thought it would be refreshing to hear from some real scientists.
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Since you have decided to just spew regurgitated CSBS I thought it would be refreshing to hear from some real scientists.
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Soloved:
Again you come up with all kind of scientists that placed their questionmarks at certain aspects of evolution theories. Well, that is what they are scientist for. But a question mark at one theorie does not make your ID/CSBS a valid theory.
You know, it might be best if no evolution theories get tought at schools in the USA. This will only mean that the edicational level of the USA in regard to Biologie and its related subjects will drop below that of the status of the educational level of Darfur.
You still refuse to understand the basics Soloved. Take the Atom model of Bohr, it gets taught at schools, but it is not a valid Theory, but it does describe a working model of which more and more details are found. Atoms are a Fact, and so is Evolution. The theory that integrates these facts into models is still changing and adapting to new data, but the fact stays.
Again you come up with all kind of scientists that placed their questionmarks at certain aspects of evolution theories. Well, that is what they are scientist for. But a question mark at one theorie does not make your ID/CSBS a valid theory.
You know, it might be best if no evolution theories get tought at schools in the USA. This will only mean that the edicational level of the USA in regard to Biologie and its related subjects will drop below that of the status of the educational level of Darfur.
You still refuse to understand the basics Soloved. Take the Atom model of Bohr, it gets taught at schools, but it is not a valid Theory, but it does describe a working model of which more and more details are found. Atoms are a Fact, and so is Evolution. The theory that integrates these facts into models is still changing and adapting to new data, but the fact stays.
QUOTE
Evidence of Design is evidence of an Intelligent Designer
1. Everywhere we look there are clear signs of patterns and design
- while patterns can arise naturally, design requires a mind.
1. Everywhere we look there are clear signs of patterns and design
- while patterns can arise naturally, design requires a mind.
Soloved, in another forum I pointed out an example of something clearly being designed, but not looking designed at all under the same dimensions that it was accurate within. I was in my lab, working on a piece of equipment. It was for Electron Beam Lithography (if you don't know what it is, I can explain later if you care), and the substrate holder was engineered to be accurate on the scale of microns (a human hair is 100 microns in diameter). I was viewing it under an SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) and at dimensions of 100's of microns something that is definately designed looks nothing like being designed. It looks rough, and randomly scratched. So you say that something looks designed, so it must be designed. I can see something that I know is designed, and it doesn't even look close to being designed. I think it is possible that something can appear designed and not be.
Can I make a relatively uneducated stab at this concept of 'design in nature'?
I'm a chemistry student, and as I learn more about the subject, more patterns in the world and in matter emerge; a glance at the periodic table will highlight many patterns and trends. I don't know a great deal about science in much depth, but ID seems based on trends such as these as one of its principle concepts - that there are patterns in the world. These are interpreted as design, which is allegedly proof of a designer - particularly in macroscopic organisms. Is this a fair assessment on my part? I hope so, because the rest of my post is based on this idea
As far as I'm aware the human mind is particularly adept at picking out patterns. If you consider that the world around us has been evolving for beelions of years, only successful 'things' (for lack of a better word) will survive - mechanisms that work will occur more and more, creating patterns around us and the illusion of design. Therefore, the 'evidence of design' in the world is no more than the repetition of successful mechanisms, organisms, and other such isms, interpreted by our minds as being more than they are. It's difficult for us to grasp the idea of something from nothing, I think, and assume patterns have to be implemented or designed by an intelligent mind.
I hope that's not too ignorant; it's just what I've gathered from my studies, from reading the debates here, and reading around the topic of evolution. If I've made a glaring error, please point it out. As long as you don't do it with scripture
Kaeroll
I'm a chemistry student, and as I learn more about the subject, more patterns in the world and in matter emerge; a glance at the periodic table will highlight many patterns and trends. I don't know a great deal about science in much depth, but ID seems based on trends such as these as one of its principle concepts - that there are patterns in the world. These are interpreted as design, which is allegedly proof of a designer - particularly in macroscopic organisms. Is this a fair assessment on my part? I hope so, because the rest of my post is based on this idea
As far as I'm aware the human mind is particularly adept at picking out patterns. If you consider that the world around us has been evolving for beelions of years, only successful 'things' (for lack of a better word) will survive - mechanisms that work will occur more and more, creating patterns around us and the illusion of design. Therefore, the 'evidence of design' in the world is no more than the repetition of successful mechanisms, organisms, and other such isms, interpreted by our minds as being more than they are. It's difficult for us to grasp the idea of something from nothing, I think, and assume patterns have to be implemented or designed by an intelligent mind.
I hope that's not too ignorant; it's just what I've gathered from my studies, from reading the debates here, and reading around the topic of evolution. If I've made a glaring error, please point it out. As long as you don't do it with scripture
Kaeroll
Well put Kaeroll, I don't know if that is one of their arguements for design, although I hope it is.....because in chemistry, there is a branch called quantum chemistry, which applies quantum mechanics to explain chemistry, and from what I know, works quite well. So these 'intelligently designed' patterns can be explained quite well without the need for a designer.
Steveo,
I've not heard of that branch specifically, but I'll certainly do some reading on it, to broaden my horizons. Will probably go over my head
That's just my take on things, anyway, and why I figure ID is incorrect. Can't make my mind up about God, on the other hand, but of course the two are totally separate.
Kaeroll
I've not heard of that branch specifically, but I'll certainly do some reading on it, to broaden my horizons. Will probably go over my head
That's just my take on things, anyway, and why I figure ID is incorrect. Can't make my mind up about God, on the other hand, but of course the two are totally separate.
Kaeroll
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.QUOTE (Steveo+Oct 11 2005, 05:01 PM)
...
And Jerry Duke, I think Arthur said it very nicely. You should "save" (note I used quotations to point out that in my mind finding jesus is not neccessarily saving) the people who need it more. I live a moral life, and I sure don't think I need saving. Your judgements of me are irrelevant to me, so why would I get "saved" when I don't think I need to. I am exersicing my free will, and the mind that I have been given (from wherever). I would rather read things for myself and think critically if they are accurate or not.
...
I could not save you if I tried. Jesus is the Saviour. Neither do I judge you or anyone else. I simply follow Jesus because he saved me.
But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:30-32)
How to be Saved
.
And Jerry Duke, I think Arthur said it very nicely. You should "save" (note I used quotations to point out that in my mind finding jesus is not neccessarily saving) the people who need it more. I live a moral life, and I sure don't think I need saving. Your judgements of me are irrelevant to me, so why would I get "saved" when I don't think I need to. I am exersicing my free will, and the mind that I have been given (from wherever). I would rather read things for myself and think critically if they are accurate or not.
...
I could not save you if I tried. Jesus is the Saviour. Neither do I judge you or anyone else. I simply follow Jesus because he saved me.
But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:30-32)
How to be Saved
.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.QUOTE (Capn Caveman+Oct 10 2005, 07:33 PM)
If God is all-loving and all-forgiving, WHY DID HE BUILD HELL? (I can't believe I'm arguing this on a science forum)
Hell was made to contain the devil. Unfortunately, we humans despised our birthright and chose the devil to be the god of this world. Because of this his abode becomes ours unless we accept the Savation of God through his Son Jesus Christ.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:43-47)
How to be Saved
.
Hell was made to contain the devil. Unfortunately, we humans despised our birthright and chose the devil to be the god of this world. Because of this his abode becomes ours unless we accept the Savation of God through his Son Jesus Christ.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:43-47)
How to be Saved
.
Steveo & Kaeroll,
Glad to see you're using the other side of your brain.
This would seem to benefit the Intelligent Design theory.
This is a good example of how science fails when it comes to -shall we say- supernatural issues.
The scientist's focus is on finding out what, how, when, and where - but seems to be lacking in the who department.
If the scientist can look at an object that has clearly been designed and say that it doesn't look designed - then how could the scientist possibly come to the conclusion that it was designed? This has been my whole beef with evolutionists - I have asked time and time again - under what circumstances would it appear to you (the evolutionist) that there is a God who could have created the universe and everything in it.
The scientist could easily become disillusioned using this type of process to determine if a pattern exists. Certainly the Designer can work within natural - including supernatural - means to create something. The scientist could, like you say, examine something so closely that it no longer appears to be designed, but is nothing more than a pattern.
Perhaps the scientist is looking for perfection in the design, I don't know. In any case, the legitimate scientist will set up boundaries and guidelines so that false information or results are less likely to occur.
Now, before you say that God can only create perfection - remember - we live in a fallen world - where nature - rather than supernature - is predominant.
As far as patterns and designs - this is just one of the many facets that Intelligent Design proponents use to support their case. I just listed a refresher course with links to a few of the many facets of ID a few posts back.
From a strictly scientific perspective - further study in Patterns and Designs is useful in that it helps to advance science in at least one way: The discovery of a pattern when compared to an actual known design will help us to improve upon the design.
SoLoved
Glad to see you're using the other side of your brain.
QUOTE
So you say that something looks designed, so it must be designed. I can see something that I know is designed, and it doesn't even look close to being designed. I think it is possible that something can appear designed and not be.
This would seem to benefit the Intelligent Design theory.
This is a good example of how science fails when it comes to -shall we say- supernatural issues.
The scientist's focus is on finding out what, how, when, and where - but seems to be lacking in the who department.
If the scientist can look at an object that has clearly been designed and say that it doesn't look designed - then how could the scientist possibly come to the conclusion that it was designed? This has been my whole beef with evolutionists - I have asked time and time again - under what circumstances would it appear to you (the evolutionist) that there is a God who could have created the universe and everything in it.
The scientist could easily become disillusioned using this type of process to determine if a pattern exists. Certainly the Designer can work within natural - including supernatural - means to create something. The scientist could, like you say, examine something so closely that it no longer appears to be designed, but is nothing more than a pattern.
Perhaps the scientist is looking for perfection in the design, I don't know. In any case, the legitimate scientist will set up boundaries and guidelines so that false information or results are less likely to occur.
Now, before you say that God can only create perfection - remember - we live in a fallen world - where nature - rather than supernature - is predominant.
As far as patterns and designs - this is just one of the many facets that Intelligent Design proponents use to support their case. I just listed a refresher course with links to a few of the many facets of ID a few posts back.
From a strictly scientific perspective - further study in Patterns and Designs is useful in that it helps to advance science in at least one way: The discovery of a pattern when compared to an actual known design will help us to improve upon the design.
SoLoved
QUOTE (SoLoved+)
This has been my whole beef with evolutionists - I have asked time and time again - under what circumstances would it appear to you (the evolutionist) that there is a God who could have created the universe and everything in it.
Hi SoLoved,
As I explained above, I'm a student and am far from an expert on evolution. I can see why evolutionists would be reluctant to answer this question, however, as their personal opinion could (not saying would - I have more respect for you than that) be twisted to suggest that they believe in ID/Creationism, if you get me.
My personal opinion is that the world could have been created by a designer or a God. It certainly works very well - but if it didn't, we'd not be here. I believe it could have a designer, but does not need one to exist as it does.
Kaeroll
Hi SoLoved,
As I explained above, I'm a student and am far from an expert on evolution. I can see why evolutionists would be reluctant to answer this question, however, as their personal opinion could (not saying would - I have more respect for you than that) be twisted to suggest that they believe in ID/Creationism, if you get me.
My personal opinion is that the world could have been created by a designer or a God. It certainly works very well - but if it didn't, we'd not be here. I believe it could have a designer, but does not need one to exist as it does.
Kaeroll
soloved
You are an idiot AND THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THERE COULD NOT BE A DESIGNER!!!
WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY TO EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM???
Grumpy
You are an idiot AND THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THERE COULD NOT BE A DESIGNER!!!
WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY TO EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM???
Grumpy
QUOTE
I'm a student
Just keep an open mind - question everything - and decide for yourself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm a student |
Just keep an open mind - question everything - and decide for yourself.
believe it could have a designer, but does not need one to exist as it does.
That's a very good point. I don't believe we've debated this idea before.
Is the Designer still in control or did He leave us to chance?
I believe God is still in control - He didn't merely wind the world up and let it go.
God's love and grace is a certainty, even amid the turmoil of today's world. I think God is deeply saddened by the world today, as many of us are. But for years now there has been an ongoing effort to remove God from our presence. We've been telling God to get out of our schools, the government, and our lives. Because God is one one who gave us free will/free choice - He has calmly backed out. But we can still expect God to give us His blessing and His protection, because He is still in control.
We have systematically removed the protections that were put in place by the Bible, only to replace them with wimpy practices that only make matters worse.
Don't pray or read the Bible in school.
Don't put up any monuments or decorations that mention God, especially Jesus.
Criticize Christians, Jews, and the Religious - especially their intellect.
Don't preach.
Don't talk about Creation or Intelligent Design
Don't spank your kids
(According to Dr. Benjamin Spock - for the uniformed, Dr. Spock's son committed suicide).
Don't criticize deviant behavior, criticize God.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Now we wonder why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Sex and violence are celebrated on TV and in movies. Movie ratings are poor for the best selling movies of all time (The Passion of the Christ) - but high and off the charts for movies at the low end.
We reap what we sow. God is still in control.
The words of F.E. Marsh is also a great reminder: "When we leave God out of our reckoning, difficulties will daunt us, temptations will triumph over us, sin will seduce us, self will sway us, the world will warp us, seeming impossibilities will irritate us, unbelief will undermine our faith, Christian work will worry us, fear will frighten us, and all things will wear a somber hue. But when God is recognized as the One who undertakes for us, then difficulties are opportunities to trust Him, temptations are the harbingers of victory, sin has no attraction, self is denied, unbelief is ignored, service is a delight, contentment sings in the heart, and all things are possible."
A pastor visited a family whose son had been killed in an automobile accident. He heard the mother rail out at him: "Where was your God when my boy was killed?" The pastor quietly answered: "The same place He was when His Son was killed."
So, is God in control? Without God the world as we know it would fall inside itself - it would utterly collapse. Even though our world seems to be falling apart, there is always hope in the God for whom all things are possible.
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
SoLoved
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 18 2005, 02:54 PM)
soloved
You are an idiot AND THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THERE COULD NOT BE A DESIGNER!!!
WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY TO EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM???
Grumpy
Back to your old self, I see.
Just what exactly is it I'm supposed to apoligize for?
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer had a very shiny nose.....
they used to laugh and call me names......
.....you'll go down in historeeeeeee!
You are an idiot AND THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THERE COULD NOT BE A DESIGNER!!!
WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY TO EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM???
Grumpy
Back to your old self, I see. Just what exactly is it I'm supposed to apoligize for? Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer had a very shiny nose.....they used to laugh and call me names......
.....you'll go down in historeeeeeee!
soloved
More of your idiotic blather.
YOU OWE EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM AN APOLOGY FOR YOUR SLANDER. You are lower than whale crap for your sleazy, perverted, morally bankrupt practices while you hide behind some scripture. You lack the least amount of character and you slimed our forum with your slander. You are a good example of why I left the church, I can't stand a hypocrite. Christian my big ol' butt. you don't qualify.
Grumpy
More of your idiotic blather.
YOU OWE EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM AN APOLOGY FOR YOUR SLANDER. You are lower than whale crap for your sleazy, perverted, morally bankrupt practices while you hide behind some scripture. You lack the least amount of character and you slimed our forum with your slander. You are a good example of why I left the church, I can't stand a hypocrite. Christian my big ol' butt. you don't qualify.
Grumpy
My, my, my.
Just where did I slander you? quote me, please.
Just where did I slander you? quote me, please.
My, my, my.
Just where did I slander you? quote me, please.
I list information taken from the founders of your religion, ah, I mean theory (of evolution) and you start calling me names. Truth versus slander. If anyone owes anyone an apology -it's you.
Your assignment on these forums, should you choose to accept it, is to respond to the posts with your best effort - not with a bunch of slanderous name calling.
No need to self-destruct.
SoLoved
Just where did I slander you? quote me, please.
I list information taken from the founders of your religion, ah, I mean theory (of evolution) and you start calling me names. Truth versus slander. If anyone owes anyone an apology -it's you.
Your assignment on these forums, should you choose to accept it, is to respond to the posts with your best effort - not with a bunch of slanderous name calling.
No need to self-destruct.
SoLoved
soloved
I don't expect you to have the integrity or character to do the right thing. Our interactions on this forum have shown your dishonesty, your willingness to lie,distort,misquote and misuse anything to advance you evil cause. But your recent slander of everyone on this forum was a new low. The websites you use show a distinct lack of morals, as do you. If we started quoting White Power, Aryan Nation and the Order websites(good Christians all) we too would be without morals and the slime would be dripping down the walls. I also have access to sermons delivered from the pulpit prior to the Civil War which speak of it being our Christian duty to care for the Darkies because they weren't able to do it for themselves and servants, obey your masters. That is the same as what you have done. We are better than that. We would not wish this forum to become a garbage dump. But you walk right in and throw your garbage on the floor, then you hide behind your posts of scripture and your crocodile tears on the moral decline of society, when you are more responsible for the lack of morals in this forum than anybody else except Jerry.
YOU OWE EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM AN APOLOGY FOR THE SLANDER BY ASSOCIATION AND FOR INSINUATING WE ARE RACIST.
Grumpy
I don't expect you to have the integrity or character to do the right thing. Our interactions on this forum have shown your dishonesty, your willingness to lie,distort,misquote and misuse anything to advance you evil cause. But your recent slander of everyone on this forum was a new low. The websites you use show a distinct lack of morals, as do you. If we started quoting White Power, Aryan Nation and the Order websites(good Christians all) we too would be without morals and the slime would be dripping down the walls. I also have access to sermons delivered from the pulpit prior to the Civil War which speak of it being our Christian duty to care for the Darkies because they weren't able to do it for themselves and servants, obey your masters. That is the same as what you have done. We are better than that. We would not wish this forum to become a garbage dump. But you walk right in and throw your garbage on the floor, then you hide behind your posts of scripture and your crocodile tears on the moral decline of society, when you are more responsible for the lack of morals in this forum than anybody else except Jerry.
YOU OWE EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM AN APOLOGY FOR THE SLANDER BY ASSOCIATION AND FOR INSINUATING WE ARE RACIST.
Grumpy
man if i never see another scripture in this forum i will be a happy man...
- Amok
P.S. The slander was i believe in calling evolutionists racists, bigots, and basically akin to hitler and everything bad in the world.
- Amok
P.S. The slander was i believe in calling evolutionists racists, bigots, and basically akin to hitler and everything bad in the world.
Hey Grumpy and Soloved?
What the *** is wrong with you guys. Arguing over nothing!
Grumpy get over your religious hate for Christians - i dont like the morals of christianity either its not the people its the bible. Too traditional. But i still do community services at the church. Christians are just as intelligent as everyone.
So loved, can you please stop repeating information on these forums and at least back them up with citable evidence... Its starting to annoy me as well
Cheers Zapper
What the *** is wrong with you guys. Arguing over nothing!
Grumpy get over your religious hate for Christians - i dont like the morals of christianity either its not the people its the bible. Too traditional. But i still do community services at the church. Christians are just as intelligent as everyone.
So loved, can you please stop repeating information on these forums and at least back them up with citable evidence... Its starting to annoy me as well
Cheers Zapper
Zapper,
Thanks for coming to my defense, I think.
What evidence are you in need of?
It's funny how things work around here.
1. If I state my opinion in my own words - they say I don't know what I'm talking about...and then they call me names.
2. If I provide evidence, quotes, books, links, etc. to back me up...
a. They either tell me to stop regurgitating other people's stuff....or
b. They tell me I don't know and they don't know what we're talking about....or
c. They get really mad because they don't like what I'm saying.
d. This discredit my scientists - which really makes me mad.
The only thing they'll accept is peer reviewed science by hand picked evolution scientists. The only way they'd ever believe in God is if Darwin himself was raised from the dead!
One of the points that I have been trying to make throughout these forums, is that evolution did incorporate racist beliefs into their theory; naturalism is being pushed by evolutionists and by liberals, if liberals can convince us that there is no God - then any behavior is acceptable, liberals are in charge of our education system, and we are being force fed something that we don't agree with, and it is destroying the moral values of our society, and more importantly (to me) it is destroying the possibility of salvation for many.
It's hard to put my whole thought in one short paragraph, and you may or may not understand it, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I think people really need to be more open minded and stop being so offended.
Taking offense at everything is so yesterday. You should be able to talk about anything, but without calling people names. Showing people who and what evolution was founded on is very relevant to this discussion. Most of the arguing arises on the side of the evolutionists arguing in this forum - they have absolutely no respect for my opinions, probably because I'm a Christian.
One final thought: Evil people have used both the Bible and Evolution for evil purposes. Two wrongs don't make a right, that's for sure.
I for one, do not have an evil cause to promote.
The whole reason I started posting in this forum was to give my opinions on whether Intelligent Design should be taught in schools or not. This is not an evil cause. It is an important cause. Some people have no room for open discussion here - only attacks - unfortunately, it seems that the only thing that affects a few certain someones here - is a right back at ya attitude. When someone tells me if you can't stand the heat - to get outta the kitchen - lemme tell ya - I know how to turn up the heat.
Peter denied Christ three times - and then became the rock of Christ's church. This is no time to turn the other cheek.
Have a nice day,
SoLoved
Thanks for coming to my defense, I think.
What evidence are you in need of?
It's funny how things work around here.
1. If I state my opinion in my own words - they say I don't know what I'm talking about...and then they call me names.
2. If I provide evidence, quotes, books, links, etc. to back me up...
a. They either tell me to stop regurgitating other people's stuff....or
b. They tell me I don't know and they don't know what we're talking about....or
c. They get really mad because they don't like what I'm saying.
d. This discredit my scientists - which really makes me mad.
The only thing they'll accept is peer reviewed science by hand picked evolution scientists. The only way they'd ever believe in God is if Darwin himself was raised from the dead!
One of the points that I have been trying to make throughout these forums, is that evolution did incorporate racist beliefs into their theory; naturalism is being pushed by evolutionists and by liberals, if liberals can convince us that there is no God - then any behavior is acceptable, liberals are in charge of our education system, and we are being force fed something that we don't agree with, and it is destroying the moral values of our society, and more importantly (to me) it is destroying the possibility of salvation for many.
It's hard to put my whole thought in one short paragraph, and you may or may not understand it, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I think people really need to be more open minded and stop being so offended.
Taking offense at everything is so yesterday. You should be able to talk about anything, but without calling people names. Showing people who and what evolution was founded on is very relevant to this discussion. Most of the arguing arises on the side of the evolutionists arguing in this forum - they have absolutely no respect for my opinions, probably because I'm a Christian.
One final thought: Evil people have used both the Bible and Evolution for evil purposes. Two wrongs don't make a right, that's for sure.
I for one, do not have an evil cause to promote.
The whole reason I started posting in this forum was to give my opinions on whether Intelligent Design should be taught in schools or not. This is not an evil cause. It is an important cause. Some people have no room for open discussion here - only attacks - unfortunately, it seems that the only thing that affects a few certain someones here - is a right back at ya attitude. When someone tells me if you can't stand the heat - to get outta the kitchen - lemme tell ya - I know how to turn up the heat.
Peter denied Christ three times - and then became the rock of Christ's church. This is no time to turn the other cheek.
Have a nice day,
SoLoved
soloved
You have that exactly backwards. Racists incorporated evolution into their rhetoric, just as White Power incorporated Christianity into their racism. Do you understand how these two facts relate??? Neither was right, and your insinuating that those of us on this forum who support evolution hold those views is slander just as us saying you hold the beliefs of White Power would be slander, The difference is that you did this reprehensible act and we did not. That is why a man with character would apologize. Do you have the character???
Naturalism is. Evolution happened. Would you have us teach lies so we won't hurt your feelings??? Only a small but loud minority of the Christian faith hold the views you advocate, most Christians have no intellectual difficulties accepting evolution, it in no way conflicts with their religious beliefs. It does not destroy the moral values of this country.
You have that exactly backwards. Racists incorporated evolution into their rhetoric, just as White Power incorporated Christianity into their racism. Do you understand how these two facts relate??? Neither was right, and your insinuating that those of us on this forum who support evolution hold those views is slander just as us saying you hold the beliefs of White Power would be slander, The difference is that you did this reprehensible act and we did not. That is why a man with character would apologize. Do you have the character???
Naturalism is. Evolution happened. Would you have us teach lies so we won't hurt your feelings??? Only a small but loud minority of the Christian faith hold the views you advocate, most Christians have no intellectual difficulties accepting evolution, it in no way conflicts with their religious beliefs. It does not destroy the moral values of this country.
I think people really need to be more open minded and stop being so offended.Taking offense at everything is so yesterday. You should be able to talk about anything, but without calling people names. Showing people who and what evolution was founded on is very relevant to this discussion. Most of the arguing arises on the side of the evolutionists arguing in this forum - they have absolutely no respect for my opinions, probably because I'm a Christian.
We have no respect for you because you keep slandering us with your stupid statements(as shown in bold above) Evolution is a science based on the facts. Some may misuse it for racist reasons but it was not founded on the crap you keep spouting. Have you no shame, don't you realize the moral corruption you are showing, we don't disrespect you because of your facade of Christianity but because your a total A..hole.
Yes, we've seen evil people use evolution for evil purposes(see above), we're trying to get one of them to see the error of his ways, confess and apologize. There is still time for you to show some integrity and character, soloved, do the right thing and apologize for your behavior.
Yes, we've seen evil people use evolution for evil purposes(see above), we're trying to get one of them to see the error of his ways, confess and apologize. There is still time for you to show some integrity and character, soloved, do the right thing and apologize for your behavior.
I for one, do not have an evil cause to promote.
That's your opinion, I do not share it. You want superstition and pseudoscience to have the same stature as a science which has proved itself. You want to impose your religious views on the public schools. You don't understand the concept of freedom from religion. That, to me is evil.
All you have shown us is that you can shovel manure. You don't know anything about how to debate without throwing crap. You can't answer the science so you pile up the garbage and I for one am tired of your juvenile antics. If you want to talk to us you need to apologize for your behavior.
Zapper
All you have shown us is that you can shovel manure. You don't know anything about how to debate without throwing crap. You can't answer the science so you pile up the garbage and I for one am tired of your juvenile antics. If you want to talk to us you need to apologize for your behavior.
Zapper
Grumpy get over your religious hate for Christians - i don't like the morals of christianity either its not the people its the bible. Too traditional. But i still do community services at the church. Christians are just as intelligent as everyone.
I don't hate true Christians, my father was a Baptist preacher and all my friends believe. I do not believe but we get along. I hate hypocrites and those who use religion to further agendas having nothing to do with God.
Grumpy
Hmmmm.....I wonder why science fails here..... Can you take a wild guess soloved? I really hope this was a slip up on your part, because if its not, that 100% illustrates why you are not qualified to be in this debate. Science (at least the physical sciences) are a study of the NATURAL world. By definition something that is supernatural does not follow the laws of nature.
Hmmmm.....I wonder why science fails here..... Can you take a wild guess soloved? I really hope this was a slip up on your part, because if its not, that 100% illustrates why you are not qualified to be in this debate. Science (at least the physical sciences) are a study of the NATURAL world. By definition something that is supernatural does not follow the laws of nature.
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
From webster's dictionary, and as should have been established months ago, science is the study of nature, ie. the visible universe. So, like I said before, if you do not see the difference between the supernatural and the natural, science and religion, you shouldn't be in this debate.
You keep saying let people decide for themselves, and I would like to remind you, that Professor Lamieroux (who I have referenced a few times) studied evolution with the intentions of destroying it (completely biased towards your opinion) and still ended up deciding that evolution is a fact. And when I pointed it out you implied (but did not say explicitly) that he was errored in his decision. When you are letting people decide for themselves more often than not the topic is not a clear cut black and white issue, and this one definately isn't. You approach it as if you do not believe the word of god you are completely in error. But again, this is not the case, although I will not try and convince you of this, because I know I won't, but come to the acceptance that people have looked within themselves deeply and come to their own conclusion that your faith is not right for them. Respect this decision. Respecting it means not to allude that they are going to hell, and are morally corrupt. Respecting means that you will not try and make them feel inferior because of their beliefs.
You have said that the decline in morals in the world is because of a 'decline' in religion, but I would like to have this backed up. I would like a survey of all convicted criminals about their faith. Convicted criminals being the only ones we have proof of 'a lack of morals' (although not all criminals are lacking morals, but more that they made a bad decision at some point). I have no proof, but I am going to state that my opinion is that the people with a lack of morals are fairly equally spread out among all beliefs. I think a lack of morals is a human thing, not an evolutionary thing.
Don't spank your kids
(According to Dr. Benjamin Spock - for the uniformed, Dr. Spock's son committed suicide).
So what you're saying is that anyone not spanked as a child will commit suicide and anyone spanked as a child won't? I have 3 adult children who have never been in trouble, none of them have a police record, they are all healthy and happy and productive adult members of society, and they were never spanked. They were, however, loved unconditionally by their parents, and they were never made to feel guilty or ashamed for being of the human race.
Oh, and by the way, being the stickler for accuracy I am, it was Benjamin Spock's grandson Peter who committed suicide in 1983.
Crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Public discussion of God passes freely through cyberspace, but crude, vulgar and obscene articles are suppressed in the school and workplace.
Bruce
these constraints are there for a reason. People live in a world where everyone is treated the same or treated 'politically correct' to use the right words. People are allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they dont not trespass on other peoples rights or beliefs.
Some people will react offensively to certain religious paraphernalia like the pentagram or the star of david. This is the main reason for people to construct a constraint on religious systems.
You are allowed to go to a church or read the bible provided you do not interfere with other people in your actions.
The same applies to science, however it is applied differently. People are allowed to form their own theories. In order to 'prove' or 'preach' theories to other people, real 'evidence' has to be used to back up your claims. For example, electrcity is a valid theory because we can construct an electric motor, provided we have the right equipment and knowledge at the same time.
I hope this has made meaning clearer here
QUOTE
One of the points that I have been trying to make throughout these forums, is that evolution did incorporate racist beliefs into their theory; naturalism is being pushed by evolutionists and by liberals, if liberals can convince us that there is no God - then any behavior is acceptable, liberals are in charge of our education system, and we are being force fed something that we don't agree with, and it is destroying the moral values of our society, and more importantly (to me) it is destroying the possibility of salvation for many.
You have that exactly backwards. Racists incorporated evolution into their rhetoric, just as White Power incorporated Christianity into their racism. Do you understand how these two facts relate??? Neither was right, and your insinuating that those of us on this forum who support evolution hold those views is slander just as us saying you hold the beliefs of White Power would be slander, The difference is that you did this reprehensible act and we did not. That is why a man with character would apologize. Do you have the character???
Naturalism is. Evolution happened. Would you have us teach lies so we won't hurt your feelings??? Only a small but loud minority of the Christian faith hold the views you advocate, most Christians have no intellectual difficulties accepting evolution, it in no way conflicts with their religious beliefs. It does not destroy the moral values of this country.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of the points that I have been trying to make throughout these forums, is that evolution did incorporate racist beliefs into their theory; naturalism is being pushed by evolutionists and by liberals, if liberals can convince us that there is no God - then any behavior is acceptable, liberals are in charge of our education system, and we are being force fed something that we don't agree with, and it is destroying the moral values of our society, and more importantly (to me) it is destroying the possibility of salvation for many. |
You have that exactly backwards. Racists incorporated evolution into their rhetoric, just as White Power incorporated Christianity into their racism. Do you understand how these two facts relate??? Neither was right, and your insinuating that those of us on this forum who support evolution hold those views is slander just as us saying you hold the beliefs of White Power would be slander, The difference is that you did this reprehensible act and we did not. That is why a man with character would apologize. Do you have the character???
Naturalism is. Evolution happened. Would you have us teach lies so we won't hurt your feelings??? Only a small but loud minority of the Christian faith hold the views you advocate, most Christians have no intellectual difficulties accepting evolution, it in no way conflicts with their religious beliefs. It does not destroy the moral values of this country.
I think people really need to be more open minded and stop being so offended.Taking offense at everything is so yesterday. You should be able to talk about anything, but without calling people names. Showing people who and what evolution was founded on is very relevant to this discussion. Most of the arguing arises on the side of the evolutionists arguing in this forum - they have absolutely no respect for my opinions, probably because I'm a Christian.
We have no respect for you because you keep slandering us with your stupid statements(as shown in bold above) Evolution is a science based on the facts. Some may misuse it for racist reasons but it was not founded on the crap you keep spouting. Have you no shame, don't you realize the moral corruption you are showing, we don't disrespect you because of your facade of Christianity but because your a total A..hole.
QUOTE
One final thought: Evil people have used both the Bible and Evolution for evil purposes. Two wrongs don't make a right, that's for sure.
Yes, we've seen evil people use evolution for evil purposes(see above), we're trying to get one of them to see the error of his ways, confess and apologize. There is still time for you to show some integrity and character, soloved, do the right thing and apologize for your behavior.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One final thought: Evil people have used both the Bible and Evolution for evil purposes. Two wrongs don't make a right, that's for sure. |
Yes, we've seen evil people use evolution for evil purposes(see above), we're trying to get one of them to see the error of his ways, confess and apologize. There is still time for you to show some integrity and character, soloved, do the right thing and apologize for your behavior.
I for one, do not have an evil cause to promote.
That's your opinion, I do not share it. You want superstition and pseudoscience to have the same stature as a science which has proved itself. You want to impose your religious views on the public schools. You don't understand the concept of freedom from religion. That, to me is evil.
QUOTE
When someone tells me if you can't stand the heat - to get outta the kitchen - lemme tell ya - I know how to turn up the heat.
All you have shown us is that you can shovel manure. You don't know anything about how to debate without throwing crap. You can't answer the science so you pile up the garbage and I for one am tired of your juvenile antics. If you want to talk to us you need to apologize for your behavior.
Zapper
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When someone tells me if you can't stand the heat - to get outta the kitchen - lemme tell ya - I know how to turn up the heat. |
All you have shown us is that you can shovel manure. You don't know anything about how to debate without throwing crap. You can't answer the science so you pile up the garbage and I for one am tired of your juvenile antics. If you want to talk to us you need to apologize for your behavior.
Zapper
Grumpy get over your religious hate for Christians - i don't like the morals of christianity either its not the people its the bible. Too traditional. But i still do community services at the church. Christians are just as intelligent as everyone.
I don't hate true Christians, my father was a Baptist preacher and all my friends believe. I do not believe but we get along. I hate hypocrites and those who use religion to further agendas having nothing to do with God.
Grumpy
Grumpy: Let me start by saying that I haven't yet read the things that SoLoved posted that got you so upset, so I'm not taking sides in your dispute. I will at least scan over it when I have a little more time. I would like to make one general statement though...there have certainly been some things coming from folks on your side of the argument/discussion that could rightly be called "slanderous", judging by your own recent definitions of the word. For example, I remember being "linked" with folks such as Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph by you and I also remember some folks comparing Christianity with the Taliban. Heck, just go back one page on this particular thread and you'll see where birdan referred to JerryDuke as David Duke of the Klu Klux Klan fame(or should I say infamy). That might have been a "slip" on birdan's part, but its posted on page 42 of this thread if you'd like to see it. I have personally stated on more than one occasion that I know that there are multitudes of hypocrites within the walls of professed "Christianity". For me, that has never been a problem where my personal faith is concerned because Jesus clearly warned that these types of things would occur with frequency. I also know that some of these hypocrites have been referenced throughout different threads on this forum as if they were genuine examples of true Christianity in an attempt to discredit Christianity. If you don't think this is so, I will take the time to look up and quote some of the posts. So, all I am asking is that in the future, when, shall we say, "challenging" the claims of Christianity or the Bible, can the folks on your side of the argument/discussion stick with the words of Christ or scripture(as has been done on many occasions, I must confess, but certainly not all) instead of calling upon people like Timothy McVeigh whose actions would be denounced by any true Christian? I'm not picking a fight...I just want to see the same standard being incorporated on both sides of the argument/discussion, because apparently there have been abuses by both sides up until now. Just my thoughts...
P.S. THIS IS MEANT TO BE FUNNY...You only mentioned SoLoved and Jerry Duke as "slimeballs"...Did I at least finish "in the money"?
P.S. THIS IS MEANT TO BE FUNNY...You only mentioned SoLoved and Jerry Duke as "slimeballs"...Did I at least finish "in the money"?
QUOTE
This is a good example of how science fails when it comes to -shall we say- supernatural issues.
Hmmmm.....I wonder why science fails here..... Can you take a wild guess soloved? I really hope this was a slip up on your part, because if its not, that 100% illustrates why you are not qualified to be in this debate. Science (at least the physical sciences) are a study of the NATURAL world. By definition something that is supernatural does not follow the laws of nature.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is a good example of how science fails when it comes to -shall we say- supernatural issues. |
Hmmmm.....I wonder why science fails here..... Can you take a wild guess soloved? I really hope this was a slip up on your part, because if its not, that 100% illustrates why you are not qualified to be in this debate. Science (at least the physical sciences) are a study of the NATURAL world. By definition something that is supernatural does not follow the laws of nature.
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
From webster's dictionary, and as should have been established months ago, science is the study of nature, ie. the visible universe. So, like I said before, if you do not see the difference between the supernatural and the natural, science and religion, you shouldn't be in this debate.
You keep saying let people decide for themselves, and I would like to remind you, that Professor Lamieroux (who I have referenced a few times) studied evolution with the intentions of destroying it (completely biased towards your opinion) and still ended up deciding that evolution is a fact. And when I pointed it out you implied (but did not say explicitly) that he was errored in his decision. When you are letting people decide for themselves more often than not the topic is not a clear cut black and white issue, and this one definately isn't. You approach it as if you do not believe the word of god you are completely in error. But again, this is not the case, although I will not try and convince you of this, because I know I won't, but come to the acceptance that people have looked within themselves deeply and come to their own conclusion that your faith is not right for them. Respect this decision. Respecting it means not to allude that they are going to hell, and are morally corrupt. Respecting means that you will not try and make them feel inferior because of their beliefs.
You have said that the decline in morals in the world is because of a 'decline' in religion, but I would like to have this backed up. I would like a survey of all convicted criminals about their faith. Convicted criminals being the only ones we have proof of 'a lack of morals' (although not all criminals are lacking morals, but more that they made a bad decision at some point). I have no proof, but I am going to state that my opinion is that the people with a lack of morals are fairly equally spread out among all beliefs. I think a lack of morals is a human thing, not an evolutionary thing.
QUOTE (SoLoved+Oct 18 2005, 09:36 PM)
Don't spank your kids
(According to Dr. Benjamin Spock - for the uniformed, Dr. Spock's son committed suicide).
So what you're saying is that anyone not spanked as a child will commit suicide and anyone spanked as a child won't? I have 3 adult children who have never been in trouble, none of them have a police record, they are all healthy and happy and productive adult members of society, and they were never spanked. They were, however, loved unconditionally by their parents, and they were never made to feel guilty or ashamed for being of the human race.
Oh, and by the way, being the stickler for accuracy I am, it was Benjamin Spock's grandson Peter who committed suicide in 1983.
QUOTE
Crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Public discussion of God passes freely through cyberspace, but crude, vulgar and obscene articles are suppressed in the school and workplace.
Bruce
Soloved -
If you had power over the education system and it taught the theory of creatonism, which at the time is founded on the bible, and evolution came into the education system as being a theory with real 'evidence', not 'written words', would you -
1. Allow these people to teach evolution in schools and universities along side with creationism and allow these students to decide for themselves?
2. Deny its existence because it goes against the bible (your shred of 'evidence')
3. Throw away creationism and completely accept evolution because of peer pressure?
4. Or come up with another alternative
When i heard about creationism, I almost threw away evolution and embraced creationism. The one thing stopping me was that i could see it was another religion... How did i come to that conclusion - i questioned everyone i knew on the subject...
If you had power over the education system and it taught the theory of creatonism, which at the time is founded on the bible, and evolution came into the education system as being a theory with real 'evidence', not 'written words', would you -
1. Allow these people to teach evolution in schools and universities along side with creationism and allow these students to decide for themselves?
2. Deny its existence because it goes against the bible (your shred of 'evidence')
3. Throw away creationism and completely accept evolution because of peer pressure?
4. Or come up with another alternative
When i heard about creationism, I almost threw away evolution and embraced creationism. The one thing stopping me was that i could see it was another religion... How did i come to that conclusion - i questioned everyone i knew on the subject...
SoLoved,
Again (and again and again), that reference to Spock's 'son' committing suicide is yet another example of 'guilt by association'. You take an incident and try to connect it to something much larger, for which it has absolutely no bearing. Can you present proof that his grandson's suicide was the result of not being spanked? This tactic is totally dishonest. It's using misrepresentation of facts, it's LYING. Or in the biblical vernacular, BEARING FALSE WITNESS. Or is it an OK thing to do as long as it's for your side of the argument?
Bruce
Again (and again and again), that reference to Spock's 'son' committing suicide is yet another example of 'guilt by association'. You take an incident and try to connect it to something much larger, for which it has absolutely no bearing. Can you present proof that his grandson's suicide was the result of not being spanked? This tactic is totally dishonest. It's using misrepresentation of facts, it's LYING. Or in the biblical vernacular, BEARING FALSE WITNESS. Or is it an OK thing to do as long as it's for your side of the argument?
Bruce
Those last two 'guest' posts were from me. For some reason my browser keeps tossing my cookies.
Bruce
Bruce
QUOTE
Don't pray or read the Bible in school.
Don't put up any monuments or decorations that mention God, especially Jesus.
Criticize Christians, Jews, and the Religious - especially their intellect.
Don't preach.
Don't talk about Creation or Intelligent Design
Don't put up any monuments or decorations that mention God, especially Jesus.
Criticize Christians, Jews, and the Religious - especially their intellect.
Don't preach.
Don't talk about Creation or Intelligent Design
these constraints are there for a reason. People live in a world where everyone is treated the same or treated 'politically correct' to use the right words. People are allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they dont not trespass on other peoples rights or beliefs.
Some people will react offensively to certain religious paraphernalia like the pentagram or the star of david. This is the main reason for people to construct a constraint on religious systems.
You are allowed to go to a church or read the bible provided you do not interfere with other people in your actions.
The same applies to science, however it is applied differently. People are allowed to form their own theories. In order to 'prove' or 'preach' theories to other people, real 'evidence' has to be used to back up your claims. For example, electrcity is a valid theory because we can construct an electric motor, provided we have the right equipment and knowledge at the same time.
I hope this has made meaning clearer here
Zapper,
Treated the same? Not. Politically correct? Biased. Allowed to do whatever they want? Not.
That's exactly the point, we are not treated the same. It is Freedom of religion - not denial of religion or freedom from religion.
When you tell me, for example, that I cannot pray or read my Bible in school - you are denying my rights. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in religious practices.
Treated the same? Not. Politically correct? Biased. Allowed to do whatever they want? Not.
That's exactly the point, we are not treated the same. It is Freedom of religion - not denial of religion or freedom from religion.
When you tell me, for example, that I cannot pray or read my Bible in school - you are denying my rights. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in religious practices.
Some people will react offensively to certain religious paraphernalia like the pentagram or the star of david. This is the main reason for people to construct a constraint on religious systems.
Here is a recent headline of what is allowed today:
"Over one hundred people were arrested this weekend in Toledo, Ohio after a riot broke out in the North section of the city where a Neo-Nazi group planned to march through a predominately African-American neighborhood."
Neo-Nazi's are allowed to walk the streets in a black neighborhood shouting racial slurs and who knows what else - but we can't pray in public? Lord God Almighty - help me deal with this, please!
But we can't have a monument inside a courthouse (of law) that portrays the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder.....?????
You want people to remove their Cross or Star of David so they can be free of fear - is that it?
What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation).
I certainly get your point here. However, like I said somewhere in this forum, evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
I certainly get your point here. However, like I said somewhere in this forum, evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
If you had power over the education system and it taught the theory of creatonism, which at the time is founded on the bible, and evolution came into the education system as being a theory with real 'evidence', not 'written words', would you -
This already happened in the 1925 Scopes trial - which we lost. Now the tables are turned - what will you do?
-------------------------------------------------------
Birdan,
Let me make myself perfectly clear as to what connections I make to what.
Lack of belief in a solid moral system causes people to believe in naturalism, putting more trust in individual ideas rather than established ideas that work. This usually leads to more bad things than good things.
The connection of Spock's son/grandson is meant to point this out. In other words, what would have happened if Spock had followed established ideas instead of new, untested ideas? A lot of people commit suicide because they are confused. Perhaps this confusion could be avoided if new ideas are introduced gradually. People are fickle and will follow any new theory that comes along - just to try it out - or because it sounds good. That's why there are so many religions. God, how I wish we had one Christian religion from the time of Jesus' birth until now.
I am not insinuating guilt upon anyone who is not guilty, I am not pronouncing guilt by association on anyone, unless of course they're guilty.
I understand that you feel I am using extreme situations to make my points. I will try my best not to be so extreme. You could try to answer the posts without feeling guilty. No one is pronouncing guilt upon you - so you have no reason to assume that we are. So if the post claims that evolution is/has caused racism - explain and/or try to prove to me how that's incorrect - or how things have improved - or what today's thinking is. There is no need to feel guilty unless you are.
SoLoved
QUOTE
QUOTE by soloved
Don't pray or read the Bible in school.
Don't put up any monuments or decorations that mention God, especially Jesus.
Criticize Christians, Jews, and the Religious - especially their intellect.
Don't preach.
Don't talk about Creation or Intelligent Design
quote by zapper,
these constraints are there for a reason. People live in a world where everyone is treated the same or treated 'politically correct' to use the right words. People are allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they dont not trespass on other peoples rights or beliefs.
Don't pray or read the Bible in school.
Don't put up any monuments or decorations that mention God, especially Jesus.
Criticize Christians, Jews, and the Religious - especially their intellect.
Don't preach.
Don't talk about Creation or Intelligent Design
quote by zapper,
these constraints are there for a reason. People live in a world where everyone is treated the same or treated 'politically correct' to use the right words. People are allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they dont not trespass on other peoples rights or beliefs.
Treated the same? Not. Politically correct? Biased. Allowed to do whatever they want? Not.
That's exactly the point, we are not treated the same. It is Freedom of religion - not denial of religion or freedom from religion.
When you tell me, for example, that I cannot pray or read my Bible in school - you are denying my rights. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in religious practices.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE by soloved Don't pray or read the Bible in school. Don't put up any monuments or decorations that mention God, especially Jesus. Criticize Christians, Jews, and the Religious - especially their intellect. Don't preach. Don't talk about Creation or Intelligent Design quote by zapper, these constraints are there for a reason. People live in a world where everyone is treated the same or treated 'politically correct' to use the right words. People are allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they dont not trespass on other peoples rights or beliefs. |
Treated the same? Not. Politically correct? Biased. Allowed to do whatever they want? Not.
That's exactly the point, we are not treated the same. It is Freedom of religion - not denial of religion or freedom from religion.
When you tell me, for example, that I cannot pray or read my Bible in school - you are denying my rights. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in religious practices.
Some people will react offensively to certain religious paraphernalia like the pentagram or the star of david. This is the main reason for people to construct a constraint on religious systems.
Here is a recent headline of what is allowed today:
"Over one hundred people were arrested this weekend in Toledo, Ohio after a riot broke out in the North section of the city where a Neo-Nazi group planned to march through a predominately African-American neighborhood."
Neo-Nazi's are allowed to walk the streets in a black neighborhood shouting racial slurs and who knows what else - but we can't pray in public? Lord God Almighty - help me deal with this, please!
But we can't have a monument inside a courthouse (of law) that portrays the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder.....?????
You want people to remove their Cross or Star of David so they can be free of fear - is that it?
What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation).
QUOTE
The same applies to science, however it is applied differently. People are allowed to form their own theories. In order to 'prove' or 'preach' theories to other people, real 'evidence' has to be used to back up your claims. For example, electrcity is a valid theory because we can construct an electric motor, provided we have the right equipment and knowledge at the same time.
I certainly get your point here. However, like I said somewhere in this forum, evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The same applies to science, however it is applied differently. People are allowed to form their own theories. In order to 'prove' or 'preach' theories to other people, real 'evidence' has to be used to back up your claims. For example, electrcity is a valid theory because we can construct an electric motor, provided we have the right equipment and knowledge at the same time. |
I certainly get your point here. However, like I said somewhere in this forum, evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
If you had power over the education system and it taught the theory of creatonism, which at the time is founded on the bible, and evolution came into the education system as being a theory with real 'evidence', not 'written words', would you -
This already happened in the 1925 Scopes trial - which we lost. Now the tables are turned - what will you do?
-------------------------------------------------------
Birdan,
QUOTE
Quote by birdan,
Again (and again and again), that reference to Spock's 'son' committing suicide is yet another example of 'guilt by association'. You take an incident and try to connect it to something much larger, for which it has absolutely no bearing. Can you present proof that his grandson's suicide was the result of not being spanked? This tactic is totally dishonest. It's using misrepresentation of facts, it's LYING. Or in the biblical vernacular, BEARING FALSE WITNESS. Or is it an OK thing to do as long as it's for your side of the argument?
Again (and again and again), that reference to Spock's 'son' committing suicide is yet another example of 'guilt by association'. You take an incident and try to connect it to something much larger, for which it has absolutely no bearing. Can you present proof that his grandson's suicide was the result of not being spanked? This tactic is totally dishonest. It's using misrepresentation of facts, it's LYING. Or in the biblical vernacular, BEARING FALSE WITNESS. Or is it an OK thing to do as long as it's for your side of the argument?
Let me make myself perfectly clear as to what connections I make to what.
Lack of belief in a solid moral system causes people to believe in naturalism, putting more trust in individual ideas rather than established ideas that work. This usually leads to more bad things than good things.
The connection of Spock's son/grandson is meant to point this out. In other words, what would have happened if Spock had followed established ideas instead of new, untested ideas? A lot of people commit suicide because they are confused. Perhaps this confusion could be avoided if new ideas are introduced gradually. People are fickle and will follow any new theory that comes along - just to try it out - or because it sounds good. That's why there are so many religions. God, how I wish we had one Christian religion from the time of Jesus' birth until now.
I am not insinuating guilt upon anyone who is not guilty, I am not pronouncing guilt by association on anyone, unless of course they're guilty.
I understand that you feel I am using extreme situations to make my points. I will try my best not to be so extreme. You could try to answer the posts without feeling guilty. No one is pronouncing guilt upon you - so you have no reason to assume that we are. So if the post claims that evolution is/has caused racism - explain and/or try to prove to me how that's incorrect - or how things have improved - or what today's thinking is. There is no need to feel guilty unless you are.
SoLoved
Steveo,
Would you please re-read my post and try to avoid getting involved in the personal attacks - you have done fairly well at staying above the fray so far.
I said supernatural - simply to illustrate the actions of a Designer.
If your brand of science must deny the existence of a God - Designer - or Supernatural events, in order to function - then it simply cannot play the game.
Thank you,
SoLoved
Would you please re-read my post and try to avoid getting involved in the personal attacks - you have done fairly well at staying above the fray so far.
I said supernatural - simply to illustrate the actions of a Designer.
If your brand of science must deny the existence of a God - Designer - or Supernatural events, in order to function - then it simply cannot play the game.
Thank you,
SoLoved
SoLoved,
No, I was not responding out of guilt. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. That I'm proud (that's right, newguy, proud) of how my children have turned out? And I didn't even have to spank them? I was responding to you bearing false witness, yet again.
As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Bruce
No, I was not responding out of guilt. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. That I'm proud (that's right, newguy, proud) of how my children have turned out? And I didn't even have to spank them? I was responding to you bearing false witness, yet again.
As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Bruce
Birdan,
Prove it.
Prove it.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Because Christianity was not founded by scientists. Although people use the Bible for evil purposes - they have no basis to do so.
People who use the Theory of Evolution to promote their racist views DO have a foundational basis for doing so.
Big difference.
SoLoved
QUOTE
As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science
Prove it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science |
Prove it.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Because Christianity was not founded by scientists. Although people use the Bible for evil purposes - they have no basis to do so.
People who use the Theory of Evolution to promote their racist views DO have a foundational basis for doing so.
Big difference.
SoLoved
SoLoved,
Using evolution as a reason for racism is no more correct than using the Bible. There is no "foundational basis" in there; Birdan put it best, I feel:
I am all for people to allow their religious beliefs to be expressed freely but that can only happen if people have an open mind. Many people ive come across are very ignorant of other people and are very inconsiderate. This is the main hurdle we have to overcome in order to allow more people to be enlightened in their knowledge of religion. But hey, that could be a personal belief ive put here.
By the way, my father is not religious but he came up with a really good joke on religion:
Imagine our civilisation is completely gone and the year is 3040 A.D. a bunch of archaeologists find the great cities and come up with theories of why these huge steel and concrete structures were all over the place. They notice something - there are way too many exit signs in every steel structure. The conclusion the archaeologists come up with to explain the exit signs is that the people (us) believed in the god of the 'EXIT'.
I am all for people to allow their religious beliefs to be expressed freely but that can only happen if people have an open mind. Many people ive come across are very ignorant of other people and are very inconsiderate. This is the main hurdle we have to overcome in order to allow more people to be enlightened in their knowledge of religion. But hey, that could be a personal belief ive put here.
By the way, my father is not religious but he came up with a really good joke on religion:
Imagine our civilisation is completely gone and the year is 3040 A.D. a bunch of archaeologists find the great cities and come up with theories of why these huge steel and concrete structures were all over the place. They notice something - there are way too many exit signs in every steel structure. The conclusion the archaeologists come up with to explain the exit signs is that the people (us) believed in the god of the 'EXIT'.
evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
Same goes for anybody who wants to allow a better technology to be utilised that is superior to existing technology because they havent got the fucken qualifications.
This is the nature of humanity at its worst, which is why, for example the CSIRO diet fads or the yo-yo diet, have gotten brief popularity.(Im talking about Australia)
This is the nature of humanity at its worst, which is why, for example the CSIRO diet fads or the yo-yo diet, have gotten brief popularity.(Im talking about Australia)
A lot of people commit suicide because they are confused.
And depressed because nothing is going well for them.
Whoa whoa watch out there - ive looked at the history of the bible and the canons (rules or laws imposed on the bible teachings) state that only selected books are allowed in the bible. The rest (about are thrown out because they are controversal teachings and conflict between the canons and what the priests wanted people to read and do as christians.
"Books banned by the Council of Laodicea
Barnabas
I Clement
II Clement
Christ and Abgarus
The Apostles' Creed
I Hermas-Visions
II Hermas-Commands
III Hermas-Similitudes
Ephesians
I Infancy
II Infancy
Mary
Magnesians
Nicodemus
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Thecla
Philippians
Philadelphians
Polycarp
Romans
Trallians
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of Reuben
Asher
Joseph
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulum
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Benjamin
"
The website is here if you want further read of the canons: http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm
Cheers Zapper
Okay, SoLoved, I need you to clarify this a bit. I have been told by many of the faithful like Duke, newguy and yourself that freedom from religion does not mean freedom from religion as in you are not allowed to be without religion. Yes or no in your opinion?
Okay, SoLoved, I need you to clarify this a bit. I have been told by many of the faithful like Duke, newguy and yourself that freedom from religion does not mean freedom from religion as in you are not allowed to be without religion. Yes or no in your opinion?
When you tell me, for example, that I cannot pray or read my Bible in school - you are denying my rights. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in religious practices.
You are able to read a xian bible in school and pray, provided it is at a time when you are allowed to what you want, like study hall, lunch, etc. There were kids that did that in my government school and as far as I know (via younger relative) still do. There have been cases where teachers and faculty have seized books including the xian bible and the resulting court cases or attention caused a correction. Nowhere in the U.S. is it illegal for anyone to read the xian bible or pray in government schools. If you were so persecuted soloved I’m sure crosses and crucifixes would be outlawed by some jewelry rule targeted at xians.
And while you’re at it, ask your god for some sense. Where has any xian been arrested for praying in public? It doesn’t happen.
And while you’re at it, ask your god for some sense. Where has any xian been arrested for praying in public? It doesn’t happen.
But we can't have a monument inside a courthouse (of law) that portrays the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder.....?????
The monument was put there by a xian-minded judge based on the same erroneous idea that the U.S. is a xian and xian-based nation. It is not. And since such intent was involved and since it violated the establishment clause it had to be removed.
Nonsensical as always. You are not being asked to remove any such symbol, even though any graven image is a violation of the foundation of your religion
Nonsensical as always. You are not being asked to remove any such symbol, even though any graven image is a violation of the foundation of your religion
I certainly get your point here. However, like I said somewhere in this forum, evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
You keep implying that there is a filter of some sort in place. There is none. Any evidence you have or any other person has will be considered and reviewed, but as it has been stated over and over soloved, if it does not hold up to peer review or cannot be replicated or is not falsifiable, it is not science.
Yes, your claim that evolution is on the run and the mighty xian “proof” is defeating it where ever it is presented. Yet you have not been able to provide such evidence here, even though you have been asked to over and over. You are trying to push myth as material evidence and alter whatever is needed to make that material fit the myth. You mentioned hand picked scientists. Pitty it is you that engages in such filtering. Anything that does not fit the “infallible” and “morally superior” xian word and followers is ignored. That is not the mindset of a scientist, just a religious zealot.
Duke, newguy, SoLoved
I ask you all the following question. There are several items in our culture that undergo what I call the pendulum effect. Religion is one of them. We as a nation are moving from a nation of a majority of one religion (xian-based) to a more secular and non-xian one.
As such, when the majority is not xian or xian based and they attack you, your religion and seek to enact limitations that you seek to place on them now, what will you cry then?
You all think you are being persecuted because the people of this nation no longer allow you to push your faith publicly and make you play by the same rules as others. You claim persecution because the nation is no longer willing to allow you to have free and unrestricted actions in regards to pushing your faith without limitations.
People turning away from your faith is not persecution. People hearing what you have to offer and not buying it is not persecution.
Do not cry foul when people simply reject what you have to offer and/or see it as something undesirable in their lives.
The simple truth is that you fear loss of control. You are no longer in charge of this nation and you are afraid of having to live in a world of people who do not believe as you do. That fear extends to control of your children. Imagine the damnation speech and reaction you all would have when your children walk away form what you preach.
Using evolution as a reason for racism is no more correct than using the Bible. There is no "foundational basis" in there; Birdan put it best, I feel:
QUOTE (birdan+)
As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science.
As far as I know, Hitler also used Christianity to back racism. Anti-semitism has been justified with the Bible for centuries - does that make the Bible wrong? No! It makes those stupid enough to twist it to their own ends wrong. Exactly the same with the figurative 'book of evolution' you've referred to.
Read this - Wikipedia article about Christianity and anti-semitism. There are tentative scripture quotes apparently used to support racism. Exactly the same as you or others quoting Nazi-era 'scientists' about eugenics.
I'm sure there are countless alleged Christians from the Middle Ages who could be quoted as saying God wants all black/asian/green/purple people killed or enslaved. I don't think anyone here would even dream of quoting such a person in a debate here; it's irrelevant and outdated, exactly the same as many of the 'scientists' you have quoted. Even the Brittanica quote from the 1920s - I don't have said encyclopaedia, but Wiki will suffice. No reference to black people being inferior there.
Point is, the sources you quote are as irrelevant as us quoting a medieval Bible scholar, or even certain Christian presidents.
Kaeroll
As far as I know, Hitler also used Christianity to back racism. Anti-semitism has been justified with the Bible for centuries - does that make the Bible wrong? No! It makes those stupid enough to twist it to their own ends wrong. Exactly the same with the figurative 'book of evolution' you've referred to.
Read this - Wikipedia article about Christianity and anti-semitism. There are tentative scripture quotes apparently used to support racism. Exactly the same as you or others quoting Nazi-era 'scientists' about eugenics.
I'm sure there are countless alleged Christians from the Middle Ages who could be quoted as saying God wants all black/asian/green/purple people killed or enslaved. I don't think anyone here would even dream of quoting such a person in a debate here; it's irrelevant and outdated, exactly the same as many of the 'scientists' you have quoted. Even the Brittanica quote from the 1920s - I don't have said encyclopaedia, but Wiki will suffice. No reference to black people being inferior there.
Point is, the sources you quote are as irrelevant as us quoting a medieval Bible scholar, or even certain Christian presidents.
Kaeroll
QUOTE
You want people to remove their Cross or Star of David so they can be free of fear - is that it?
What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation).
What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation).
I am all for people to allow their religious beliefs to be expressed freely but that can only happen if people have an open mind. Many people ive come across are very ignorant of other people and are very inconsiderate. This is the main hurdle we have to overcome in order to allow more people to be enlightened in their knowledge of religion. But hey, that could be a personal belief ive put here.
By the way, my father is not religious but he came up with a really good joke on religion:
Imagine our civilisation is completely gone and the year is 3040 A.D. a bunch of archaeologists find the great cities and come up with theories of why these huge steel and concrete structures were all over the place. They notice something - there are way too many exit signs in every steel structure. The conclusion the archaeologists come up with to explain the exit signs is that the people (us) believed in the god of the 'EXIT'.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want people to remove their Cross or Star of David so they can be free of fear - is that it? What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation). |
I am all for people to allow their religious beliefs to be expressed freely but that can only happen if people have an open mind. Many people ive come across are very ignorant of other people and are very inconsiderate. This is the main hurdle we have to overcome in order to allow more people to be enlightened in their knowledge of religion. But hey, that could be a personal belief ive put here.
By the way, my father is not religious but he came up with a really good joke on religion:
Imagine our civilisation is completely gone and the year is 3040 A.D. a bunch of archaeologists find the great cities and come up with theories of why these huge steel and concrete structures were all over the place. They notice something - there are way too many exit signs in every steel structure. The conclusion the archaeologists come up with to explain the exit signs is that the people (us) believed in the god of the 'EXIT'.
evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
Same goes for anybody who wants to allow a better technology to be utilised that is superior to existing technology because they havent got the fucken qualifications.
QUOTE
Lack of belief in a solid moral system causes people to believe in naturalism, putting more trust in individual ideas rather than established ideas that work. This usually leads to more bad things than good things.
This is the nature of humanity at its worst, which is why, for example the CSIRO diet fads or the yo-yo diet, have gotten brief popularity.(Im talking about Australia)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lack of belief in a solid moral system causes people to believe in naturalism, putting more trust in individual ideas rather than established ideas that work. This usually leads to more bad things than good things. |
This is the nature of humanity at its worst, which is why, for example the CSIRO diet fads or the yo-yo diet, have gotten brief popularity.(Im talking about Australia)
A lot of people commit suicide because they are confused.
And depressed because nothing is going well for them.
QUOTE
God, how I wish we had one Christian religion from the time of Jesus' birth until now.
Whoa whoa watch out there - ive looked at the history of the bible and the canons (rules or laws imposed on the bible teachings) state that only selected books are allowed in the bible. The rest (about are thrown out because they are controversal teachings and conflict between the canons and what the priests wanted people to read and do as christians.
"Books banned by the Council of Laodicea
Barnabas
I Clement
II Clement
Christ and Abgarus
The Apostles' Creed
I Hermas-Visions
II Hermas-Commands
III Hermas-Similitudes
Ephesians
I Infancy
II Infancy
Mary
Magnesians
Nicodemus
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Thecla
Philippians
Philadelphians
Polycarp
Romans
Trallians
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of Reuben
Asher
Joseph
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulum
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Benjamin
"
The website is here if you want further read of the canons: http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm
Cheers Zapper
QUOTE
That's exactly the point, we are not treated the same. It is Freedom of religion - not denial of religion or freedom from religion.
Okay, SoLoved, I need you to clarify this a bit. I have been told by many of the faithful like Duke, newguy and yourself that freedom from religion does not mean freedom from religion as in you are not allowed to be without religion. Yes or no in your opinion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's exactly the point, we are not treated the same. It is Freedom of religion - not denial of religion or freedom from religion. |
Okay, SoLoved, I need you to clarify this a bit. I have been told by many of the faithful like Duke, newguy and yourself that freedom from religion does not mean freedom from religion as in you are not allowed to be without religion. Yes or no in your opinion?
When you tell me, for example, that I cannot pray or read my Bible in school - you are denying my rights. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in religious practices.
You are able to read a xian bible in school and pray, provided it is at a time when you are allowed to what you want, like study hall, lunch, etc. There were kids that did that in my government school and as far as I know (via younger relative) still do. There have been cases where teachers and faculty have seized books including the xian bible and the resulting court cases or attention caused a correction. Nowhere in the U.S. is it illegal for anyone to read the xian bible or pray in government schools. If you were so persecuted soloved I’m sure crosses and crucifixes would be outlawed by some jewelry rule targeted at xians.
QUOTE
Neo-Nazi's are allowed to walk the streets in a black neighborhood shouting racial slurs and who knows what else - but we can't pray in public? Lord God Almighty - help me deal with this, please!
And while you’re at it, ask your god for some sense. Where has any xian been arrested for praying in public? It doesn’t happen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Neo-Nazi's are allowed to walk the streets in a black neighborhood shouting racial slurs and who knows what else - but we can't pray in public? Lord God Almighty - help me deal with this, please! |
And while you’re at it, ask your god for some sense. Where has any xian been arrested for praying in public? It doesn’t happen.
But we can't have a monument inside a courthouse (of law) that portrays the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder.....?????
The monument was put there by a xian-minded judge based on the same erroneous idea that the U.S. is a xian and xian-based nation. It is not. And since such intent was involved and since it violated the establishment clause it had to be removed.
QUOTE
You want people to remove their Cross or Star of David so they can be free of fear - is that it?
What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation).
What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation).
Nonsensical as always. You are not being asked to remove any such symbol, even though any graven image is a violation of the foundation of your religion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want people to remove their Cross or Star of David so they can be free of fear - is that it? What kind of world it this we are moving towards? (No doubt, the one described in the Book of Revelation). |
Nonsensical as always. You are not being asked to remove any such symbol, even though any graven image is a violation of the foundation of your religion
I certainly get your point here. However, like I said somewhere in this forum, evolutionists will dismiss any scientific evidence that does not come from a hand picked evolution scientist. Period.
You keep implying that there is a filter of some sort in place. There is none. Any evidence you have or any other person has will be considered and reviewed, but as it has been stated over and over soloved, if it does not hold up to peer review or cannot be replicated or is not falsifiable, it is not science.
QUOTE
This already happened in the 1925 Scopes trial - which we lost. Now the tables are turned - what will you do?
Yes, your claim that evolution is on the run and the mighty xian “proof” is defeating it where ever it is presented. Yet you have not been able to provide such evidence here, even though you have been asked to over and over. You are trying to push myth as material evidence and alter whatever is needed to make that material fit the myth. You mentioned hand picked scientists. Pitty it is you that engages in such filtering. Anything that does not fit the “infallible” and “morally superior” xian word and followers is ignored. That is not the mindset of a scientist, just a religious zealot.
Duke, newguy, SoLoved
I ask you all the following question. There are several items in our culture that undergo what I call the pendulum effect. Religion is one of them. We as a nation are moving from a nation of a majority of one religion (xian-based) to a more secular and non-xian one.
As such, when the majority is not xian or xian based and they attack you, your religion and seek to enact limitations that you seek to place on them now, what will you cry then?
You all think you are being persecuted because the people of this nation no longer allow you to push your faith publicly and make you play by the same rules as others. You claim persecution because the nation is no longer willing to allow you to have free and unrestricted actions in regards to pushing your faith without limitations.
People turning away from your faith is not persecution. People hearing what you have to offer and not buying it is not persecution.
Do not cry foul when people simply reject what you have to offer and/or see it as something undesirable in their lives.
The simple truth is that you fear loss of control. You are no longer in charge of this nation and you are afraid of having to live in a world of people who do not believe as you do. That fear extends to control of your children. Imagine the damnation speech and reaction you all would have when your children walk away form what you preach.
QUOTE (SoLoved+Oct 19 2005, 07:02 AM)
Birdan,
Prove it.
Prove it.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Because Christianity was not founded by scientists. Although people use the Bible for evil purposes - they have no basis to do so.
People who use the Theory of Evolution to promote their racist views DO have a foundational basis for doing so.
Big difference.
SoLoved
SoLoved,
What sanctimonious claptrap. You make a nonsensical claim and we have to prove it is wrong? It has been pointed out over and over soloved that evolution does not seek address moral values. Your religion seeks to answer and be the answer for every aspect of life. The defacto reaction of such a polarized and simplistic mindset is that if I do not follow your religion that whatever I do support must be a defacto replacement for your religion. As Grumpy keeps telling you, life and reality is more complex than that.
Using your claim/refute request model, I could simple claim that you molest young boys as many xians do and unless you can prove me wrong, you have no need to feel guilty unless it is true.
QUOTE
As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science
Prove it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science |
Prove it.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Because Christianity was not founded by scientists. Although people use the Bible for evil purposes - they have no basis to do so.
People who use the Theory of Evolution to promote their racist views DO have a foundational basis for doing so.
Big difference.
SoLoved SoLoved,
QUOTE
I understand that you feel I am using extreme situations to make my points. I will try my best not to be so extreme. You could try to answer the posts without feeling guilty. No one is pronouncing guilt upon you - so you have no reason to assume that we are. So if the post claims that evolution is/has caused racism - explain and/or try to prove to me how that's incorrect - or how things have improved - or what today's thinking is. There is no need to feel guilty unless you are.
What sanctimonious claptrap. You make a nonsensical claim and we have to prove it is wrong? It has been pointed out over and over soloved that evolution does not seek address moral values. Your religion seeks to answer and be the answer for every aspect of life. The defacto reaction of such a polarized and simplistic mindset is that if I do not follow your religion that whatever I do support must be a defacto replacement for your religion. As Grumpy keeps telling you, life and reality is more complex than that.
Using your claim/refute request model, I could simple claim that you molest young boys as many xians do and unless you can prove me wrong, you have no need to feel guilty unless it is true.
QUOTE (SoLoved+Oct 19 2005, 07:02 AM)
Birdan,
Prove it.
Prove it.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Because Christianity was not founded by scientists. Although people use the Bible for evil purposes - they have no basis to do so.
People who use the Theory of Evolution to promote their racist views DO have a foundational basis for doing so.
Big difference.
SoLoved
SoLoved,
Sorry, I pressed the wrong button ....
What exactly is it you want me to prove? That Eugenics was not science? I could just say that from your point of view, since evolution is not science, then anything based on it couldn't be science either. Or I could point out that when speaking of Eugenics the past tense is always used, since it is a dead and discredited topic. Or I could point out there are no modern science publications that support any of its views. Or you could do a Google and pull up thousands of examples discrediting it.
I don't know what you mean by 'foundational basis'. Please explain. How does twisting facts or using facts out of context imply some sort of legitimacy to a group's social agenda? Evolution, like the other sciences, presents a theory towards understanding natural phenomena. How individuals use these theories is not under the control of the theory, just as how people use biblical quotations (their 'foundational basis'?) to justify their actions and agenda are not under the control of the bible. I thought you were all for personal accountability and responsibility. But now you're saying of people 'evolution made me do it!'? I suggest you hold those people accountable, not the theory. You seem to be implying the world is full of parents telling their children, "Now Johnnie and Janie, remember you are descended from apes and therefore have no personal responsibility, so go out and lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Have fun, and don't be late for dinner." What chapter of Spock's book was that in? I've never read any of Spock's books, so I have no opinion on them. Have you read any of them? I absolutely agree there are problems that can be attributed to poor upbringing of children, but I don't think it would make one iota of difference to those parents whether evolution is discredited or not. "Oh Mabel, look at this article in the newspaper. Says here evolution isn't true! We'd better change the way we're raising our kids."
So, let's see. I'll even go one step further (even though this runs the risk of confusing the conversation). Even using a theory's 'facts' factually (and I AM NOT implying this was true for Eugenics) for some outcome has no bearing on that theory's 'correctness' or 'morality'. Einstein's theory of special relativity equated mass to energy. Therefore, Einstein and his theory are responsible for thermonuclear devices! Let's get rid of special relativity! No, the theory was an explanation for a natural phenomena. If you don't care for thermonuclear devices, go after the people who build them.
A couple of times every year planes fall out of the sky, killing hundreds of people. Every day people fall down, often breaking bones, sometimes even killing themselves. That damn Newton and his gravity! Look at all the pain and suffering he caused! Let's get rid of gravity too!
Bruce
You and the other are addressed together due to your posts. I have not confused one of you for the other as you might think. I address you collectively in the previous post because of your similar stances and posts. All of you speak form the position of a superior moral authority or a superior position due to nothing more than your xian belief. Your differences have been noted, but are shades of grey in comparison to the common beliefs you hold all of which you have expressed in similar fashion. An example would be your condemnation of non-xians, threats of hell and eternal damnation, etc.
You and the other are addressed together due to your posts. I have not confused one of you for the other as you might think. I address you collectively in the previous post because of your similar stances and posts. All of you speak form the position of a superior moral authority or a superior position due to nothing more than your xian belief. Your differences have been noted, but are shades of grey in comparison to the common beliefs you hold all of which you have expressed in similar fashion. An example would be your condemnation of non-xians, threats of hell and eternal damnation, etc.
So, please stop categorizing me with others that don't necessarily share these same beliefs that I do. To insinuate that I am looking for "control" over this country's government is simply ridiculous. The only "control" that I seek, is the Lordship of Jesus Christ over people's lives as they willingly submit to Him.
And once your god, church or faith controls the people, they control society and our government. You can state it how you like, the outcome is the same.
I’m sure you do. Do you also think that revelation is upon us? Ask the voice.
I’m sure you do. Do you also think that revelation is upon us? Ask the voice.
I hope this adequately answers your question and stops you from confusing me with others...Elliott Herrera included. By the way, I have been emailing back and forth with Yahoo for many days and they have told me that they will have the correct info posted regarding my registration on NetSol's "Whois" within the next 48 hours.
You still have no clue do you? I did not nor do I confuse you with other posters. As far as your whois entry is concerned, you still do not understand and I fear are just incapable of understanding the full ramifications of what was pointed out to you by others and myself. Like I said before, I will make my point regarding that matter in another way.
I have not once claimed 'my' science denies the existance of god! My science functions with, or without the existance of god. It is free from religion, and by saying free I mean that it is not biased one way or another by the existance, or non existance of a god. If you review my posts I have stated several times that science and religion are SEPARATE subjects, and can coexist. Please stop telling me that my 'brand' of science is atheist, because it is not. Several people I study with and work with believe in the christian god, go to church, read the bible, etc... yet we all study the same science, and don't disagree with it (it is physics, not biology, but both are sciences). It can't play your game, where unobservable things have to be accounted for. Science doesn't limit the beliefs of supernatural things, but it says that if they happen, science can not understand them. My personal BELIEFS say that there are no supernatural events happen, but these are my beliefs, and they can not be proven wrong, because if a supernatural event happens, and I try to explain it using science and continually fail, it doesn't mean that it can't be explained, it means I can not explain it because of the limits on my intelligence.
About your claim of a filter, I can refute it with one example. Einstein, considered by many as the greatest physicist of all time (and the universal symbol for genius) had an incredible career from 1905-around the 1930's. The end of his incredible career is arguable, and I don't know enough about Einstein to conclusively say, but I do know that at the end of his career his search for a grand unifying theory alienated him from the scientific community and many physicists did not respect him, or take his work from the later years of his life seriously. So to say that only a select few people in science have a say may be true, but its not because of reputation or beliefs, its because of quality of work. If the 'greatest scientist' alive could have his work just tossed out because it was actually arguable of poor quality, it shows that science looks at quality of work, not beliefs. So there you have it, this filter you claim is not 'true', because there existed one example that refuted it.
I have to work now, so I can't respond to everything I wanted to, but I wanted to address these points soloved. I was not meaning to attack you, but I truly believe that if you don't understand what science is (I am sorry, but by your posts you have shown that you don't) you are not qualified to be in this discussion.
Since we do not have the opportunity to homeschool our kids, and since I feel a responsibility to kids everywhere - I have a problem with what I believe is a false theory (evolution) being imposed upon innocent children who have no choice but to sit and listen.
Intelligent Design is not the perfect answer for me either - but it's not a bad thing. If it meets scientific scrutiny and can be introduced alongside the false theory of evolution, then that makes me happy. I'm all about being happy.
The anger being displayed on this board has made it almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the subject. At times it seems there is a glimmer of hope, at other times it's back to attack mode. I really don't see why evolutionists should get angry that their theory is being questioned. I have no problem with the Bible being questioned - it gives me an opportunity to provide additional information. If they're trying to convince me of anything, it's not working.
So, not so NewGuy anymore, why are you here?
Maybe the Duke of Jerry would like to answer that as well.
While we're at it - maybe everyone should answer that question. I wouldn't want to assu-me anything.
SoLoved
Since we do not have the opportunity to homeschool our kids, and since I feel a responsibility to kids everywhere - I have a problem with what I believe is a false theory (evolution) being imposed upon innocent children who have no choice but to sit and listen.
Intelligent Design is not the perfect answer for me either - but it's not a bad thing. If it meets scientific scrutiny and can be introduced alongside the false theory of evolution, then that makes me happy. I'm all about being happy.
The anger being displayed on this board has made it almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the subject. At times it seems there is a glimmer of hope, at other times it's back to attack mode. I really don't see why evolutionists should get angry that their theory is being questioned. I have no problem with the Bible being questioned - it gives me an opportunity to provide additional information. If they're trying to convince me of anything, it's not working.
So, not so NewGuy anymore, why are you here?
Maybe the Duke of Jerry would like to answer that as well.
While we're at it - maybe everyone should answer that question. I wouldn't want to assu-me anything.
SoLoved
SoLoved: If I'm understanding your question correctly, then I think when you asked me:
"Why are you here?",
that the "here" means this forum. My response should not surprise anyone. I'm "here", although I'm constantly strongly considering being "outta here", to talk about the Intelligent Designer Himself as opposed to Intelligent Design itself. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that is going to change most peoples' minds(and I'm talking about people without the boundaries of this forum as well as within its boundaries) is a genuine change of heart that only God, the Intelligent Designer, can give. I think my posts throughout the different threads would bear witness to my motives for being "here". That being said, please don't misunderstand my question to you to mean that I'm a supporter of the evolutionary teachings that are taking place within the government run classrooms. I'm not. I'm no supporter of a whole host of other things that take place within the government run schools either. However, who ever said that the government had to decide what you teach your children? Certainly NOT God. If you put yourself, or in this case, your child "into their arms", so to speak, then I personally believe that you(I'm using the word "you" collectively, although that would also include "you" individually) have no one to blame but yourself for what that child is taught or mistaught. The same God that created the heavens and the earth is capable to provide us with the means to obey his commands...in this case, namely:
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."(Proverbs 22:6)
My life, homeschooling included, is BY NO MEANS EASY...but it is possible, by the grace of God. I have literally had to alter my entire lifestyle in order to homeschool my child(soon to be, children). Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to "fight the system", in this case, the school system, is from without, not within. This doesn't mean that I too don't care about what the children are being taught. I do. It does however mean that the accountability of what the children are being taught ultimately lies with the parent/parents of the children and you, I believe, would be better off trying to reach the parents than change the system. Several years ago, I willingly and knowingly took more than an 8 dollars an hour pay cut and left the business world to work part-time in my friend's pizzeria. My motivation??? The youth of my town. My friend's pizzeria was located directly across the street from both the public high school and a catholic school. Working in the pizzeria gave me direct access to the children of the town and many of their parents. I won't lie and say that I "won the town to Christ" by being there...however, I was able to talk with children, give some Bibles and tracts and at least cause Christ to be in their thoughts, whether mockingly or genuinely. I recently took a "shot" from Grumpy in which he accused me of being relegated to the flea markets of this world...There is absolutely no truth to that. I wasn't relegated anywhere, I went willingly. My current self-proprietorship is a direct result of my willingness to nurture and teach my own child at any cost. I couldn't care less what anyone in this world thinks about me as far as my line of business is concerned...I know that God is pleased with it, as it allows me to do what He has already commanded me to do. I would suggest to you that you thank God for the freedoms that you do presently have(homeschooling being but one) and utilize them to the fullest degree possible. As I said, God's grace is sufficient for you...if you're but willing to follow Him at any cost.
All life on this planet fills or occupies a place where it can survive. Highly specialized animals normally go extinct when their habitat disappears and they cannot adapt to a new one. Like most theists, you are viewing the world backwards. Our planet does not fit the life that exists on it, but rather the opposite is true.
All life on this planet fills or occupies a place where it can survive. Highly specialized animals normally go extinct when their habitat disappears and they cannot adapt to a new one. Like most theists, you are viewing the world backwards. Our planet does not fit the life that exists on it, but rather the opposite is true.
Outside influences on our plaent such as the orbit of the earth the position of the moon temerature of our sun and even the orbits of other planets all affect earth.
No, unlike what the hucksters claim, planetary alignments or the movements of other planets do not directly affect ours. If you believe that other planets affect us directly, then you are wrong.
And again, evolution does not seek to answer such. Theists need to stop demanding that evolution address aspects of our existence that it does not seek to address.
The tidal forces from the moon affect us, and thats about it. And like Genesplicer said, Evolution does not seek to cover every aspect of evolution. A theory that would cover every aspect of evolution would be one incredibly dense theory.
I am going to go over the basics of what we would be doing scientifically. Evolution the theory is a model to describe what actually happened as life on this planet evolved. As a model it is most likely slightly simplified so we can use it.
So in science the most common process is that you find some unexplained phenomena. Then you build a model to try and explain it. The models are usually based on some assumptions that can be either experimentally verified or falsified. (Einsteins theory of Special relativity would fall apart if today the speed of light was measured in a vacuum and had a completely different value.). Then this model is tested to see if it holds true for the phenomena you were trying to explain. If it does, then you pull out some other predictions from it (hopefully it can make other predictions) and test those, and if those also are verified your model gains even more credibility.
Maybe one day there will be a theory that covers every aspect of existance, but that will contain a whole lot more information than evolution does.
Look at the current glamor subject in physics, String Theory, which is hoping to be the theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics. This theory has been worked on for like 25 years or more, by 100's of physicists and its so complex they don't even have the actual equations yet, only simplifications of the equations.
The tidal forces from the moon affect us, and thats about it. And like Genesplicer said, Evolution does not seek to cover every aspect of evolution. A theory that would cover every aspect of evolution would be one incredibly dense theory.
I am going to go over the basics of what we would be doing scientifically. Evolution the theory is a model to describe what actually happened as life on this planet evolved. As a model it is most likely slightly simplified so we can use it.
So in science the most common process is that you find some unexplained phenomena. Then you build a model to try and explain it. The models are usually based on some assumptions that can be either experimentally verified or falsified. (Einsteins theory of Special relativity would fall apart if today the speed of light was measured in a vacuum and had a completely different value.). Then this model is tested to see if it holds true for the phenomena you were trying to explain. If it does, then you pull out some other predictions from it (hopefully it can make other predictions) and test those, and if those also are verified your model gains even more credibility.
Maybe one day there will be a theory that covers every aspect of existance, but that will contain a whole lot more information than evolution does.
Look at the current glamor subject in physics, String Theory, which is hoping to be the theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics. This theory has been worked on for like 25 years or more, by 100's of physicists and its so complex they don't even have the actual equations yet, only simplifications of the equations.
As I have said before, I will not try to change your belief in the Bible, that is your right. Though I do not equate other books to scripture, Iread a book years ago called "Everything I Need To Know, I Learned In Kindergarten". The message in this book is profound, the gist being that humans learn their morals by the time they are 5 years old. This consists mostly of the Golden Rule(Do unto others...) learned through interactions with other children and adults. Before this age children do not understand the Bible or other sources of morality, yet they have a basic sense of morality by the fifth year. I believe the premise expounded by this book, but my belief would not meet the standard of scientific evidence. To meet that standard I would have to do years of study and observation of children, including repeatable experimentation(tasks, games, surveys), collate the data, submit it to peer review. If the only evidence I had was a copy of the book and my belief then, no matter how true I believed the book to be, I would never be able to meet the standard of scientific evidence, no matter how many people I persuaded that the book was true. Would that affect my belief in the book? No, I believe it because of my experiences which convince me it is true. Would that mean the book is not true? No,but I could not provide scientifically convincing evidence of that. Would that mean that book was of no value? No,it's insite is very valuable to me.
I know the above example is not in the same league as the Bible, but the principle is the same. The Bible has to be accepted on faith,because it answers the inner questions science cannot touch. Science must subject all evidence to the scientific method, faith is not sufficient for valid evidence. It can answer questions about the physical world but cannot say anything about the spiritual realm. When religion and science stay within their boundaries there is no conflict between them. They,together, give a fuller answer to the questions of life than either alone can. But science cannot answer spiritual questions, nor can religion answer scientific questions.
Those are my thoughts on the subject(without reference to any other source). I would be interested in yours.
Grumpy, I think you explained your point very well here, and I hope Soloved understands it, but it doesn't seem so.
You have found irrefutable internal proof. Everything you speak of is great for you, but everything that happened was internal. In your thoughts, your beliefs, and maybe god even 'spoke' to you. But the thing is, that is not scientific proof. How are you going to recreate, for everyone to see, the moment that you fully accepted god into your life? I doubt you could, and without reproducability you can not call it scientific proof. Also, if you were trying to prove to me that god existed what would you do? Pray for him to prove to me his existance. If there is a god, my thoughts are he would either completely ignore you, or 'say' that if you need him to prove his existance to someone else for validation, then you don't truly believe. If you are so confident in your faith, why do you need to prove it to us? My thoughts are you shouldn't have to.
Just a comment about the conversation on the school system, and teaching in government schools and home schooling. Not to say that everything taught in schools is the best thing to be taught, or even right, but we hire educators because no parent knows it all. You might tell your kids that when they are young, or they might think it (I thought my dad knew everything until I was probably a young teenager.....he knows an unbelievable amount of stuff). The best a parent could do would be to know a little bit of stuff about a lot of things (thats my dad, and he 'tricked' with a vast variety of knowledge that he knew everything). When you go to school, after elementary school you usually have different teachers for different subjects, and the teachers knowledge is much more specialized.
Soloved, you might be surprised, but I do not really like how science is taught in schools. I think evolution should be taught, because right or wrong, it is the best SCIENTIFIC theory on that subject around. And as far as I know, the only one (I know you think that ID is a scientific theory, but I am getting sick of explaining to you why its not repeatedly, so please don't bring it up at the moment) I think that more time needs to be spent teaching the scientific method, and illustrating how important the scientific method is. When I got to university, and more so when I started doing real physics labs did I realize how important being rigorous is! So, evolutionary research is rigorous, but anyone who isn't in the field doesn't no how rigorous it is, and this makes them think that the theory isn't on solid observable foundations. Also, in schools it NEEDS to be stressed that if a theory is never 100% true, only true until evidence is found against it, so, at least in 'theory' evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow, although that is doubtful. Also, when it comes to homeschooling, for a child who is much 'brighter' than their parents they will reach a point where the parent can no longer teach them things.
I would like to ask Soloved a question. If you had a child who you taught Genisis and creation to, and then they learned of evolution, and the only thing that would make them happy is to study evolution, and research evolution how would you handle that? Because as a parent you don't want to push your prejudices onto your kids, no matter what they are. As you have said, present them with the information and let them decide for themselves right? But I just wonder if that also counts for deciding against your beliefs.
They are free to do as they wish.
Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
My kids love to debate me on a variety of subjects - from politics to religion to football and more. It's all part of the process.
I imagine you would feel much the same way if the situation were reversed, no?
SoLoved
They are free to do as they wish.
Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
My kids love to debate me on a variety of subjects - from politics to religion to football and more. It's all part of the process.
I imagine you would feel much the same way if the situation were reversed, no?
SoLoved
Except if a child is "trained up in the way he should go", meaning filling his impressionable mind with Creation Science, and then from someone s/he trusts IMPLICITLY, certainly could cause cognitive dissonance when confronted with Science taught by people they don't particularly like (teachers) and then when Dad confirms that the teachers are Wrong, of course one can see a child "not departing from it"
You provided evidence that this was the case for you when you pointed out that "you did not believe your teachers when they told you that Dinosaurs existed", it took the SCIENCE, i.e. seeing the fossils in a museum to force you to reconsider. Even then you resolved your cognitive dissonance by coming up with an illogical conclusion as to where dinosaurs fit within the history of life on the planet. Compressing their formidable 200 million year presence into a ridiculously short 2,000 year period.
On the other hand, allow a child to learn Science, without prejudice and that child will then most likely not grow up to accept some ancient myth in place of well tested scientific proof. For a great many people, who also have "faith", they find it easy to reconcile the allegorical history presented in the old testament with reality as discovered through rigorous scientific analysis.
We are now dealing with a growing body of "pseudoscience" that purportedly shows that either the Old Testament is literally true or that Evolution is "not true". These pseudoscientific explanations apparently appeals to people with some scientific training, but not enough to see the gaping holes in these weak "scientific" arguments.
Arthur
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
An Experiment You Can Do
How to be Saved
.
Your “experiment” is nothing more than a prayer and an argument that you must do so before you die or else “it may be too late”. As always, fear, threats and commands from the “moral superiors”. You have nothing else to offer and what you offer holds no sway over rational and skeptical minds.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
QUOTE
As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science
Prove it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for evolution and racism, eugenics IS NOT evolution. It was a SOCIAL movement which promoted racism. It was 'couched' in scientific vernacular with the express purpose of trying to give itself an air of legitimacy. It misquoted and twisted pieces of evolutionary theory for its own political and social purposes. It WAS NOT evolution, nor was it even science |
Prove it.
So here's a direct question for you: When citing something like eugenics as "claims that evolution is/has caused racism", how is that different from someone claiming that the bible promotes racism because people have used the biblical references to slavery in the old testament to justify slavery, segregation, prejudice?
Because Christianity was not founded by scientists. Although people use the Bible for evil purposes - they have no basis to do so.
People who use the Theory of Evolution to promote their racist views DO have a foundational basis for doing so.
Big difference.
SoLovedSoLoved,
Sorry, I pressed the wrong button ....
What exactly is it you want me to prove? That Eugenics was not science? I could just say that from your point of view, since evolution is not science, then anything based on it couldn't be science either. Or I could point out that when speaking of Eugenics the past tense is always used, since it is a dead and discredited topic. Or I could point out there are no modern science publications that support any of its views. Or you could do a Google and pull up thousands of examples discrediting it.
I don't know what you mean by 'foundational basis'. Please explain. How does twisting facts or using facts out of context imply some sort of legitimacy to a group's social agenda? Evolution, like the other sciences, presents a theory towards understanding natural phenomena. How individuals use these theories is not under the control of the theory, just as how people use biblical quotations (their 'foundational basis'?) to justify their actions and agenda are not under the control of the bible. I thought you were all for personal accountability and responsibility. But now you're saying of people 'evolution made me do it!'? I suggest you hold those people accountable, not the theory. You seem to be implying the world is full of parents telling their children, "Now Johnnie and Janie, remember you are descended from apes and therefore have no personal responsibility, so go out and lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Have fun, and don't be late for dinner." What chapter of Spock's book was that in? I've never read any of Spock's books, so I have no opinion on them. Have you read any of them? I absolutely agree there are problems that can be attributed to poor upbringing of children, but I don't think it would make one iota of difference to those parents whether evolution is discredited or not. "Oh Mabel, look at this article in the newspaper. Says here evolution isn't true! We'd better change the way we're raising our kids."
So, let's see. I'll even go one step further (even though this runs the risk of confusing the conversation). Even using a theory's 'facts' factually (and I AM NOT implying this was true for Eugenics) for some outcome has no bearing on that theory's 'correctness' or 'morality'. Einstein's theory of special relativity equated mass to energy. Therefore, Einstein and his theory are responsible for thermonuclear devices! Let's get rid of special relativity! No, the theory was an explanation for a natural phenomena. If you don't care for thermonuclear devices, go after the people who build them.
A couple of times every year planes fall out of the sky, killing hundreds of people. Every day people fall down, often breaking bones, sometimes even killing themselves. That damn Newton and his gravity! Look at all the pain and suffering he caused! Let's get rid of gravity too!
Bruce
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Oct 19 2005, 01:47 PM)
Duke, newguy, SoLoved
I ask you all the following question. There are several items in our culture that undergo what I call the pendulum effect. Religion is one of them. We as a nation are moving from a nation of a majority of one religion (xian-based) to a more secular and non-xian one.
As such, when the majority is not xian or xian based and they attack you, your religion and seek to enact limitations that you seek to place on them now, what will you cry then?
You all think you are being persecuted because the people of this nation no longer allow you to push your faith publicly and make you play by the same rules as others. You claim persecution because the nation is no longer willing to allow you to have free and unrestricted actions in regards to pushing your faith without limitations.
People turning away from your faith is not persecution. People hearing what you have to offer and not buying it is not persecution.
Do not cry foul when people simply reject what you have to offer and/or see it as something undesirable in their lives.
The simple truth is that you fear loss of control. You are no longer in charge of this nation and you are afraid of having to live in a world of people who do not believe as you do. That fear extends to control of your children. Imagine the damnation speech and reaction you all would have when your children walk away form what you preach.
GeneSplicer: Before anwering your question, please allow me to ask one of my own. Why can't you distinguish between Jerry Duke, SoLoved and me? Why do you, and others, I might add, keep lumping us together, as if we were one and the same person? Granted, if we were all being led by the same Spirit and governed by the same laws of God, we should be of one mind, but apparently that is not yet the case, as our own posts would surely seem to indicate. I, for one(it's me, newguy...not Jerry Duke or SoLoved) have clearly stated that I do not believe that the USA is a "Christian" nation, nor do I believe it has been for a very, very long time, IF EVER. I stated clearly in a previous post somewhere that I believe that "USA" could rightly be interpreted as "Under Satan's Authority", so what gives? I don't fear, for even one moment, this nation NOT being a "Christian" nation...it has NEVER been one during my lifetime and apparently never will be one, at least not until some time after Christ's return after which:
"The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."(Revelation 11:15)
I personally believe, and have preached to multitudes over the years, that the United States of America is one of the two "horns"("kingdoms") that constitutes the "two-horned beast"("two kingdoms") mentioned in the book of Revelation(Revelation 13:11) that looks "like a lamb"(claims to be "Christian"), but speaks "as a dragon"(is really inspired by Satan). Those are MY beliefs, as derived from Holy Scripture and from observing the world around me. So, please stop categorizing me with others that don't necessarily share these same beliefs that I do. To insinuate that I am looking for "control" over this country's government is simply ridiculous. The only "control" that I seek, is the Lordship of Jesus Christ over people's lives as they willingly submit to Him. You, and others, certainly have the "right" to reject this "control" with, of course, all of the previously mentioned consequences that you, and others apparently, have chosen to simply relegate to the dungeon of "myth". As I said, your "choice".
In addition, as I've also previously stated throughout this vast forum, I have never entered into the "fight" to have ID taught in government run classrooms. NEVER! I've even gone so far on this forum to ask SoLoved why he is presently involved in this "fight"...a question, which I might add, he has yet to answer. The schools can teach whatever they want. As I've plainly told everyone, I have the option to homeschool...an option that I've chosen for a vast number of reasons, the theory of evolution being only one of many things in the public schools that I reject. My "choice", right??? My personal "battle plan", if I can use that terminology, is to educate the parents...not change the government run school systems, so, as I said, please stop lumping me in with others that apparently do not think nor act the way that I do. Also, I don't advocate "fighting" to have manger scenes posted on government property, or any property at all, for that matter as others apparently do. I share your apparent views that this is simply "idolatry" or "graven images".
And lastly...I know full well what true Biblical "persecution" is and isn't. Thanks anyway.
I hope this adequately answers your question and stops you from confusing me with others...Elliott Herrera included. By the way, I have been emailing back and forth with Yahoo for many days and they have told me that they will have the correct info posted regarding my registration on NetSol's "Whois" within the next 48 hours.
I ask you all the following question. There are several items in our culture that undergo what I call the pendulum effect. Religion is one of them. We as a nation are moving from a nation of a majority of one religion (xian-based) to a more secular and non-xian one.
As such, when the majority is not xian or xian based and they attack you, your religion and seek to enact limitations that you seek to place on them now, what will you cry then?
You all think you are being persecuted because the people of this nation no longer allow you to push your faith publicly and make you play by the same rules as others. You claim persecution because the nation is no longer willing to allow you to have free and unrestricted actions in regards to pushing your faith without limitations.
People turning away from your faith is not persecution. People hearing what you have to offer and not buying it is not persecution.
Do not cry foul when people simply reject what you have to offer and/or see it as something undesirable in their lives.
The simple truth is that you fear loss of control. You are no longer in charge of this nation and you are afraid of having to live in a world of people who do not believe as you do. That fear extends to control of your children. Imagine the damnation speech and reaction you all would have when your children walk away form what you preach.
GeneSplicer: Before anwering your question, please allow me to ask one of my own. Why can't you distinguish between Jerry Duke, SoLoved and me? Why do you, and others, I might add, keep lumping us together, as if we were one and the same person? Granted, if we were all being led by the same Spirit and governed by the same laws of God, we should be of one mind, but apparently that is not yet the case, as our own posts would surely seem to indicate. I, for one(it's me, newguy...not Jerry Duke or SoLoved) have clearly stated that I do not believe that the USA is a "Christian" nation, nor do I believe it has been for a very, very long time, IF EVER. I stated clearly in a previous post somewhere that I believe that "USA" could rightly be interpreted as "Under Satan's Authority", so what gives? I don't fear, for even one moment, this nation NOT being a "Christian" nation...it has NEVER been one during my lifetime and apparently never will be one, at least not until some time after Christ's return after which:
"The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."(Revelation 11:15)
I personally believe, and have preached to multitudes over the years, that the United States of America is one of the two "horns"("kingdoms") that constitutes the "two-horned beast"("two kingdoms") mentioned in the book of Revelation(Revelation 13:11) that looks "like a lamb"(claims to be "Christian"), but speaks "as a dragon"(is really inspired by Satan). Those are MY beliefs, as derived from Holy Scripture and from observing the world around me. So, please stop categorizing me with others that don't necessarily share these same beliefs that I do. To insinuate that I am looking for "control" over this country's government is simply ridiculous. The only "control" that I seek, is the Lordship of Jesus Christ over people's lives as they willingly submit to Him. You, and others, certainly have the "right" to reject this "control" with, of course, all of the previously mentioned consequences that you, and others apparently, have chosen to simply relegate to the dungeon of "myth". As I said, your "choice".
In addition, as I've also previously stated throughout this vast forum, I have never entered into the "fight" to have ID taught in government run classrooms. NEVER! I've even gone so far on this forum to ask SoLoved why he is presently involved in this "fight"...a question, which I might add, he has yet to answer. The schools can teach whatever they want. As I've plainly told everyone, I have the option to homeschool...an option that I've chosen for a vast number of reasons, the theory of evolution being only one of many things in the public schools that I reject. My "choice", right??? My personal "battle plan", if I can use that terminology, is to educate the parents...not change the government run school systems, so, as I said, please stop lumping me in with others that apparently do not think nor act the way that I do. Also, I don't advocate "fighting" to have manger scenes posted on government property, or any property at all, for that matter as others apparently do. I share your apparent views that this is simply "idolatry" or "graven images".
And lastly...I know full well what true Biblical "persecution" is and isn't. Thanks anyway.
I hope this adequately answers your question and stops you from confusing me with others...Elliott Herrera included. By the way, I have been emailing back and forth with Yahoo for many days and they have told me that they will have the correct info posted regarding my registration on NetSol's "Whois" within the next 48 hours.
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: Before anwering your question, ...
You and the other are addressed together due to your posts. I have not confused one of you for the other as you might think. I address you collectively in the previous post because of your similar stances and posts. All of you speak form the position of a superior moral authority or a superior position due to nothing more than your xian belief. Your differences have been noted, but are shades of grey in comparison to the common beliefs you hold all of which you have expressed in similar fashion. An example would be your condemnation of non-xians, threats of hell and eternal damnation, etc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GeneSplicer: Before anwering your question, ... |
You and the other are addressed together due to your posts. I have not confused one of you for the other as you might think. I address you collectively in the previous post because of your similar stances and posts. All of you speak form the position of a superior moral authority or a superior position due to nothing more than your xian belief. Your differences have been noted, but are shades of grey in comparison to the common beliefs you hold all of which you have expressed in similar fashion. An example would be your condemnation of non-xians, threats of hell and eternal damnation, etc.
So, please stop categorizing me with others that don't necessarily share these same beliefs that I do. To insinuate that I am looking for "control" over this country's government is simply ridiculous. The only "control" that I seek, is the Lordship of Jesus Christ over people's lives as they willingly submit to Him.
And once your god, church or faith controls the people, they control society and our government. You can state it how you like, the outcome is the same.
QUOTE
And lastly...I know full well what true Biblical "persecution" is and isn't. Thanks anyway.
I’m sure you do. Do you also think that revelation is upon us? Ask the voice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And lastly...I know full well what true Biblical "persecution" is and isn't. Thanks anyway. |
I’m sure you do. Do you also think that revelation is upon us? Ask the voice.
I hope this adequately answers your question and stops you from confusing me with others...Elliott Herrera included. By the way, I have been emailing back and forth with Yahoo for many days and they have told me that they will have the correct info posted regarding my registration on NetSol's "Whois" within the next 48 hours.
You still have no clue do you? I did not nor do I confuse you with other posters. As far as your whois entry is concerned, you still do not understand and I fear are just incapable of understanding the full ramifications of what was pointed out to you by others and myself. Like I said before, I will make my point regarding that matter in another way.
QUOTE
If your brand of science must deny the existence of a God - Designer - or Supernatural events, in order to function - then it simply cannot play the game.
I have not once claimed 'my' science denies the existance of god! My science functions with, or without the existance of god. It is free from religion, and by saying free I mean that it is not biased one way or another by the existance, or non existance of a god. If you review my posts I have stated several times that science and religion are SEPARATE subjects, and can coexist. Please stop telling me that my 'brand' of science is atheist, because it is not. Several people I study with and work with believe in the christian god, go to church, read the bible, etc... yet we all study the same science, and don't disagree with it (it is physics, not biology, but both are sciences). It can't play your game, where unobservable things have to be accounted for. Science doesn't limit the beliefs of supernatural things, but it says that if they happen, science can not understand them. My personal BELIEFS say that there are no supernatural events happen, but these are my beliefs, and they can not be proven wrong, because if a supernatural event happens, and I try to explain it using science and continually fail, it doesn't mean that it can't be explained, it means I can not explain it because of the limits on my intelligence.
About your claim of a filter, I can refute it with one example. Einstein, considered by many as the greatest physicist of all time (and the universal symbol for genius) had an incredible career from 1905-around the 1930's. The end of his incredible career is arguable, and I don't know enough about Einstein to conclusively say, but I do know that at the end of his career his search for a grand unifying theory alienated him from the scientific community and many physicists did not respect him, or take his work from the later years of his life seriously. So to say that only a select few people in science have a say may be true, but its not because of reputation or beliefs, its because of quality of work. If the 'greatest scientist' alive could have his work just tossed out because it was actually arguable of poor quality, it shows that science looks at quality of work, not beliefs. So there you have it, this filter you claim is not 'true', because there existed one example that refuted it.
I have to work now, so I can't respond to everything I wanted to, but I wanted to address these points soloved. I was not meaning to attack you, but I truly believe that if you don't understand what science is (I am sorry, but by your posts you have shown that you don't) you are not qualified to be in this discussion.
newguy
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your post.
I have grave misgivings about your claims about your religion, I have made no secret of that. And we have had heated exchanges where we both were less than polite. But I have tried not to call your claims lies or slander you falsely. And I do not recall any instance where I felt slandered by your replies. I have used various people as examples of religion being used to justify evil, but I have never said religion was based on that evil or insinuated those evil beliefs were held by all who supported a religious viewpoint.
This is what soloved has done, that is why he owes everyone on this forum an apology. If I quoted White Power garbage, stated that your religion was based on it and claimed that all who supported your religion believed the same then I would be guilty of slander and would(if I had character) apologize and retract those statements. I really do not expect soloved to do that, he's shown us his lack of morals in his willingness to sin to advance his agenda.
Again, we will never agree on our views. We will have heated exchanges in the future. And I am not one to beat around the bush when it comes to expressing my opinion. But all my arguements will follow the rules of debate, will be based on truth as I see it and will not be cheap shots or slander. Attack my logic, I can defend myself, but do not lie about me as soloved has done to me and everyone in this forum.
Grumpy
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your post.
I have grave misgivings about your claims about your religion, I have made no secret of that. And we have had heated exchanges where we both were less than polite. But I have tried not to call your claims lies or slander you falsely. And I do not recall any instance where I felt slandered by your replies. I have used various people as examples of religion being used to justify evil, but I have never said religion was based on that evil or insinuated those evil beliefs were held by all who supported a religious viewpoint.
This is what soloved has done, that is why he owes everyone on this forum an apology. If I quoted White Power garbage, stated that your religion was based on it and claimed that all who supported your religion believed the same then I would be guilty of slander and would(if I had character) apologize and retract those statements. I really do not expect soloved to do that, he's shown us his lack of morals in his willingness to sin to advance his agenda.
Again, we will never agree on our views. We will have heated exchanges in the future. And I am not one to beat around the bush when it comes to expressing my opinion. But all my arguements will follow the rules of debate, will be based on truth as I see it and will not be cheap shots or slander. Attack my logic, I can defend myself, but do not lie about me as soloved has done to me and everyone in this forum.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Quote by newguy,
In addition, as I've also previously stated throughout this vast forum, I have never entered into the "fight" to have ID taught in government run classrooms. NEVER! I've even gone so far on this forum to ask SoLoved why he is presently involved in this "fight"...a question, which I might add, he has yet to answer.
In addition, as I've also previously stated throughout this vast forum, I have never entered into the "fight" to have ID taught in government run classrooms. NEVER! I've even gone so far on this forum to ask SoLoved why he is presently involved in this "fight"...a question, which I might add, he has yet to answer.
Since we do not have the opportunity to homeschool our kids, and since I feel a responsibility to kids everywhere - I have a problem with what I believe is a false theory (evolution) being imposed upon innocent children who have no choice but to sit and listen.
Intelligent Design is not the perfect answer for me either - but it's not a bad thing. If it meets scientific scrutiny and can be introduced alongside the false theory of evolution, then that makes me happy. I'm all about being happy.
The anger being displayed on this board has made it almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the subject. At times it seems there is a glimmer of hope, at other times it's back to attack mode. I really don't see why evolutionists should get angry that their theory is being questioned. I have no problem with the Bible being questioned - it gives me an opportunity to provide additional information. If they're trying to convince me of anything, it's not working.
So, not so NewGuy anymore, why are you here?
Maybe the Duke of Jerry would like to answer that as well.
While we're at it - maybe everyone should answer that question. I wouldn't want to assu-me anything.
SoLoved
QUOTE (SoLoved+Oct 19 2005, 07:23 PM)
QUOTE
Quote by newguy,
In addition, as I've also previously stated throughout this vast forum, I have never entered into the "fight" to have ID taught in government run classrooms. NEVER! I've even gone so far on this forum to ask SoLoved why he is presently involved in this "fight"...a question, which I might add, he has yet to answer.
In addition, as I've also previously stated throughout this vast forum, I have never entered into the "fight" to have ID taught in government run classrooms. NEVER! I've even gone so far on this forum to ask SoLoved why he is presently involved in this "fight"...a question, which I might add, he has yet to answer.
Since we do not have the opportunity to homeschool our kids, and since I feel a responsibility to kids everywhere - I have a problem with what I believe is a false theory (evolution) being imposed upon innocent children who have no choice but to sit and listen.
Intelligent Design is not the perfect answer for me either - but it's not a bad thing. If it meets scientific scrutiny and can be introduced alongside the false theory of evolution, then that makes me happy. I'm all about being happy.
The anger being displayed on this board has made it almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the subject. At times it seems there is a glimmer of hope, at other times it's back to attack mode. I really don't see why evolutionists should get angry that their theory is being questioned. I have no problem with the Bible being questioned - it gives me an opportunity to provide additional information. If they're trying to convince me of anything, it's not working.
So, not so NewGuy anymore, why are you here?
Maybe the Duke of Jerry would like to answer that as well.
While we're at it - maybe everyone should answer that question. I wouldn't want to assu-me anything.
SoLovedSoLoved: If I'm understanding your question correctly, then I think when you asked me:
"Why are you here?",
that the "here" means this forum. My response should not surprise anyone. I'm "here", although I'm constantly strongly considering being "outta here", to talk about the Intelligent Designer Himself as opposed to Intelligent Design itself. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that is going to change most peoples' minds(and I'm talking about people without the boundaries of this forum as well as within its boundaries) is a genuine change of heart that only God, the Intelligent Designer, can give. I think my posts throughout the different threads would bear witness to my motives for being "here". That being said, please don't misunderstand my question to you to mean that I'm a supporter of the evolutionary teachings that are taking place within the government run classrooms. I'm not. I'm no supporter of a whole host of other things that take place within the government run schools either. However, who ever said that the government had to decide what you teach your children? Certainly NOT God. If you put yourself, or in this case, your child "into their arms", so to speak, then I personally believe that you(I'm using the word "you" collectively, although that would also include "you" individually) have no one to blame but yourself for what that child is taught or mistaught. The same God that created the heavens and the earth is capable to provide us with the means to obey his commands...in this case, namely:
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."(Proverbs 22:6)
My life, homeschooling included, is BY NO MEANS EASY...but it is possible, by the grace of God. I have literally had to alter my entire lifestyle in order to homeschool my child(soon to be, children). Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to "fight the system", in this case, the school system, is from without, not within. This doesn't mean that I too don't care about what the children are being taught. I do. It does however mean that the accountability of what the children are being taught ultimately lies with the parent/parents of the children and you, I believe, would be better off trying to reach the parents than change the system. Several years ago, I willingly and knowingly took more than an 8 dollars an hour pay cut and left the business world to work part-time in my friend's pizzeria. My motivation??? The youth of my town. My friend's pizzeria was located directly across the street from both the public high school and a catholic school. Working in the pizzeria gave me direct access to the children of the town and many of their parents. I won't lie and say that I "won the town to Christ" by being there...however, I was able to talk with children, give some Bibles and tracts and at least cause Christ to be in their thoughts, whether mockingly or genuinely. I recently took a "shot" from Grumpy in which he accused me of being relegated to the flea markets of this world...There is absolutely no truth to that. I wasn't relegated anywhere, I went willingly. My current self-proprietorship is a direct result of my willingness to nurture and teach my own child at any cost. I couldn't care less what anyone in this world thinks about me as far as my line of business is concerned...I know that God is pleased with it, as it allows me to do what He has already commanded me to do. I would suggest to you that you thank God for the freedoms that you do presently have(homeschooling being but one) and utilize them to the fullest degree possible. As I said, God's grace is sufficient for you...if you're but willing to follow Him at any cost.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 19 2005, 05:09 PM)
newguy
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your post.
I have grave misgivings about your claims about your religion, I have made no secret of that. And we have had heated exchanges where we both were less than polite. But I have tried not to call your claims lies or slander you falsely. And I do not recall any instance where I felt slandered by your replies. I have used various people as examples of religion being used to justify evil, but I have never said religion was based on that evil or insinuated those evil beliefs were held by all who supported a religious viewpoint.
This is what soloved has done, that is why he owes everyone on this forum an apology. If I quoted White Power garbage, stated that your religion was based on it and claimed that all who supported your religion believed the same then I would be guilty of slander and would(if I had character) apologize and retract those statements. I really do not expect soloved to do that, he's shown us his lack of morals in his willingness to sin to advance his agenda.
Again, we will never agree on our views. We will have heated exchanges in the future. And I am not one to beat around the bush when it comes to expressing my opinion. But all my arguements will follow the rules of debate, will be based on truth as I see it and will not be cheap shots or slander. Attack my logic, I can defend myself, but do not lie about me as soloved has done to me and everyone in this forum.
Grumpy
Grumpy: I'm genuinely glad that you have never felt "slandered" by my replies as apparently you do understand "the rules of debate". One of "the rules of debate", at least as far as I understand it, is the use of what might be termed either "poetic flair"(perhaps "poetic FLARE") or "poetic license". This is something that I have frequently used in the past in direct responses to you. Most of the times, hopefully all of the times, that I have been "less than polite" to you would fall under this category of "poetic flair/flare". I have often used animal related statements in my responses to you which, hopefully, would be allowed within a discussion involving evolution since it is strongly related to the animal world. By no means do I have any genuine personal malice towards you...it's almost better if you thought I did than to understand my true feelings towards you and others on this forum. Whether this offends you or angers you, I pray for all of you with heartfelt sincerity(which would hopefully only make sense to you, understanding my beliefs) and wish none of you any harm or judgment. If I did wish you harm(again, understanding my beliefs), then I would simply just say:
"THE HELL WITH THEM!"
I trust that at least makes sense to you, whether you agree with it or not. Anyway, thanks for your latest response.
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your post.
I have grave misgivings about your claims about your religion, I have made no secret of that. And we have had heated exchanges where we both were less than polite. But I have tried not to call your claims lies or slander you falsely. And I do not recall any instance where I felt slandered by your replies. I have used various people as examples of religion being used to justify evil, but I have never said religion was based on that evil or insinuated those evil beliefs were held by all who supported a religious viewpoint.
This is what soloved has done, that is why he owes everyone on this forum an apology. If I quoted White Power garbage, stated that your religion was based on it and claimed that all who supported your religion believed the same then I would be guilty of slander and would(if I had character) apologize and retract those statements. I really do not expect soloved to do that, he's shown us his lack of morals in his willingness to sin to advance his agenda.
Again, we will never agree on our views. We will have heated exchanges in the future. And I am not one to beat around the bush when it comes to expressing my opinion. But all my arguements will follow the rules of debate, will be based on truth as I see it and will not be cheap shots or slander. Attack my logic, I can defend myself, but do not lie about me as soloved has done to me and everyone in this forum.
Grumpy
Grumpy: I'm genuinely glad that you have never felt "slandered" by my replies as apparently you do understand "the rules of debate". One of "the rules of debate", at least as far as I understand it, is the use of what might be termed either "poetic flair"(perhaps "poetic FLARE") or "poetic license". This is something that I have frequently used in the past in direct responses to you. Most of the times, hopefully all of the times, that I have been "less than polite" to you would fall under this category of "poetic flair/flare". I have often used animal related statements in my responses to you which, hopefully, would be allowed within a discussion involving evolution since it is strongly related to the animal world. By no means do I have any genuine personal malice towards you...it's almost better if you thought I did than to understand my true feelings towards you and others on this forum. Whether this offends you or angers you, I pray for all of you with heartfelt sincerity(which would hopefully only make sense to you, understanding my beliefs) and wish none of you any harm or judgment. If I did wish you harm(again, understanding my beliefs), then I would simply just say:
"THE HELL WITH THEM!"
I trust that at least makes sense to you, whether you agree with it or not. Anyway, thanks for your latest response.
To new guy
That "shot" about flea markets skirts the very edge of accepted argument, was mean spirited and said in the heat of the moment. I normally try to be better than that but, being human and fallible, I sometimes fail. If I stepped over the line I apologize to you for that.
Grumpy
That "shot" about flea markets skirts the very edge of accepted argument, was mean spirited and said in the heat of the moment. I normally try to be better than that but, being human and fallible, I sometimes fail. If I stepped over the line I apologize to you for that.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 19 2005, 08:47 PM)
To new guy
That "shot" about flea markets skirts the very edge of accepted argument, was mean spirited and said in the heat of the moment. I normally try to be better than that but, being human and fallible, I sometimes fail. If I stepped over the line I apologize to you for that.
Grumpy
Grumpy: No problem. As I said, hopefully I understand "the rules of debate" and I wasn't really bothered by the statement. I only mentioned it in my response to SoLoved to let him know that I have literally rearranged my entire life to do what my God commands. This next statement isn't aimed directly at SoLoved, as I really don't know the man, but I have met multitudes of "Christians" whose real "gripe" should be with themselves for not being willing to follow Christ at any cost. Instead of fixing their lives, they try to fix the system. Whether this is the case with SoLoved or not, I just wanted to throw that out there for whosoever it might apply to. Hopefully, although I know that hardly anyone agrees with any of my viewpoints, you can at least have a small measure of respect towards me for at least attempting to practice what I preach in regards to my child/children. Whether or not you do, as I said, no problem. Absolutely no offense taken.
That "shot" about flea markets skirts the very edge of accepted argument, was mean spirited and said in the heat of the moment. I normally try to be better than that but, being human and fallible, I sometimes fail. If I stepped over the line I apologize to you for that.
Grumpy
Grumpy: No problem. As I said, hopefully I understand "the rules of debate" and I wasn't really bothered by the statement. I only mentioned it in my response to SoLoved to let him know that I have literally rearranged my entire life to do what my God commands. This next statement isn't aimed directly at SoLoved, as I really don't know the man, but I have met multitudes of "Christians" whose real "gripe" should be with themselves for not being willing to follow Christ at any cost. Instead of fixing their lives, they try to fix the system. Whether this is the case with SoLoved or not, I just wanted to throw that out there for whosoever it might apply to. Hopefully, although I know that hardly anyone agrees with any of my viewpoints, you can at least have a small measure of respect towards me for at least attempting to practice what I preach in regards to my child/children. Whether or not you do, as I said, no problem. Absolutely no offense taken.
new guy
For what reason would I take offense of your comparison of me and my cousins, the chimps and gorillas?? They are among the gentlest creatures on Earth, care for the young, old and injured amongst them, have a proven sense of humor, use tools and teach their children their uses and generally conduct themselves with dignity and grace. Jane Goodall's video tapes of her living amongst the Highland Gorillas opened the eyes of more than a few scientists and showed a level of civilized living previously thought to only exist among humans. Koko, the gorilla taught American sign language adopted a kitten whose tail had been chewed off at birth, the kitten became a cat and they interacted much as humans and cats do. When the cat was hit by a car and killed the sounds of Koko's mourning went on for two days and were heart breaking to hear. She was offered many kittens to replace her dead pet but refused them all until offered another kitten with a missing tail, which she accepted. If the great apes show such human attributes who are we to look down our nose at them. I do not and I accept that they are my distant relatives without reservation so to compare me to them is not an insult, I like them more than I like some humans.
Some say that I look like a gorilla but we should not be insulting such innocent creatures like that.
Grumpy
For what reason would I take offense of your comparison of me and my cousins, the chimps and gorillas?? They are among the gentlest creatures on Earth, care for the young, old and injured amongst them, have a proven sense of humor, use tools and teach their children their uses and generally conduct themselves with dignity and grace. Jane Goodall's video tapes of her living amongst the Highland Gorillas opened the eyes of more than a few scientists and showed a level of civilized living previously thought to only exist among humans. Koko, the gorilla taught American sign language adopted a kitten whose tail had been chewed off at birth, the kitten became a cat and they interacted much as humans and cats do. When the cat was hit by a car and killed the sounds of Koko's mourning went on for two days and were heart breaking to hear. She was offered many kittens to replace her dead pet but refused them all until offered another kitten with a missing tail, which she accepted. If the great apes show such human attributes who are we to look down our nose at them. I do not and I accept that they are my distant relatives without reservation so to compare me to them is not an insult, I like them more than I like some humans.
Some say that I look like a gorilla but we should not be insulting such innocent creatures like that.
Grumpy
For the record, I'm agnostic. I'll accept irrefutable proof of God's existence; I haven't found it and no one else has either.
We're high-end cousins to the primates; what are their low-end cousins. . . cats possibly! The eyes have it!
Thanks.
We're high-end cousins to the primates; what are their low-end cousins. . . cats possibly! The eyes have it!
Thanks.
Grumpy: While we're in the midst of this, how shall we say, "cease fire", I did want to share another thought that I had recently that pertains to the topic of natural versus supernatural proof. A verse of scripture popped into my head yesterday that I meant to share with you. The verse is this:
"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."(Matthew 10:7-8)
That, of course, was Jesus speaking. Just a possible observation...
It seems that God has at least chosen preaching and the confirmation of that preaching with supernatural signs to prove His existence. If this is considered to be "inadmissable evidence", then aren't at least some possible areas of proof being removed? Of course, when I mention the supernatural, this would also include the "new birth" or being genuinely "born again", at which time one would come to personally know God Himself. I ask this question in light of other discussions throughout this forum where the supernatural has been basically dismissed as hearsay(I remember your previous answer about DA's and hearsay, however, much "testimony" is indeed true, nonetheless). Just a question. Any further thoughts?
"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."(Matthew 10:7-8)
That, of course, was Jesus speaking. Just a possible observation...
It seems that God has at least chosen preaching and the confirmation of that preaching with supernatural signs to prove His existence. If this is considered to be "inadmissable evidence", then aren't at least some possible areas of proof being removed? Of course, when I mention the supernatural, this would also include the "new birth" or being genuinely "born again", at which time one would come to personally know God Himself. I ask this question in light of other discussions throughout this forum where the supernatural has been basically dismissed as hearsay(I remember your previous answer about DA's and hearsay, however, much "testimony" is indeed true, nonetheless). Just a question. Any further thoughts?
new guy
As I have said before, I will not try to change your belief in the Bible, that is your right. Though I do not equate other books to scripture, Iread a book years ago called "Everything I Need To Know, I Learned In Kindergarten". The message in this book is profound, the gist being that humans learn their morals by the time they are 5 years old. This consists mostly of the Golden Rule(Do unto others...) learned through interactions with other children and adults. Before this age children do not understand the Bible or other sources of morality, yet they have a basic sense of morality by the fifth year. I believe the premise expounded by this book, but my belief would not meet the standard of scientific evidence. To meet that standard I would have to do years of study and observation of children, including repeatable experimentation(tasks, games, surveys), collate the data, submit it to peer review. If the only evidence I had was a copy of the book and my belief then, no matter how true I believed the book to be, I would never be able to meet the standard of scientific evidence, no matter how many people I persuaded that the book was true. Would that affect my belief in the book? No, I believe it because of my experiences which convince me it is true. Would that mean the book is not true? No,but I could not provide scientifically convincing evidence of that. Would that mean that book was of no value? No,it's insite is very valuable to me.
I know the above example is not in the same league as the Bible, but the principle is the same. The Bible has to be accepted on faith,because it answers the inner questions science cannot touch. Science must subject all evidence to the scientific method, faith is not sufficient for valid evidence. It can answer questions about the physical world but cannot say anything about the spiritual realm. When religion and science stay within their boundaries there is no conflict between them. They,together, give a fuller answer to the questions of life than either alone can. But science cannot answer spiritual questions, nor can religion answer scientific questions.
Those are my thoughts on the subject(without reference to any other source). I would be interested in yours.
Grumpy
As I have said before, I will not try to change your belief in the Bible, that is your right. Though I do not equate other books to scripture, Iread a book years ago called "Everything I Need To Know, I Learned In Kindergarten". The message in this book is profound, the gist being that humans learn their morals by the time they are 5 years old. This consists mostly of the Golden Rule(Do unto others...) learned through interactions with other children and adults. Before this age children do not understand the Bible or other sources of morality, yet they have a basic sense of morality by the fifth year. I believe the premise expounded by this book, but my belief would not meet the standard of scientific evidence. To meet that standard I would have to do years of study and observation of children, including repeatable experimentation(tasks, games, surveys), collate the data, submit it to peer review. If the only evidence I had was a copy of the book and my belief then, no matter how true I believed the book to be, I would never be able to meet the standard of scientific evidence, no matter how many people I persuaded that the book was true. Would that affect my belief in the book? No, I believe it because of my experiences which convince me it is true. Would that mean the book is not true? No,but I could not provide scientifically convincing evidence of that. Would that mean that book was of no value? No,it's insite is very valuable to me.
I know the above example is not in the same league as the Bible, but the principle is the same. The Bible has to be accepted on faith,because it answers the inner questions science cannot touch. Science must subject all evidence to the scientific method, faith is not sufficient for valid evidence. It can answer questions about the physical world but cannot say anything about the spiritual realm. When religion and science stay within their boundaries there is no conflict between them. They,together, give a fuller answer to the questions of life than either alone can. But science cannot answer spiritual questions, nor can religion answer scientific questions.
Those are my thoughts on the subject(without reference to any other source). I would be interested in yours.
Grumpy
How many creatures could you remove from the earth?
It seems to me that without insects our world would become a trash heap.
Without something to feed on the insects they would ovewhelm the planet wouldn't they?
Wouldn't many types of vegetation fail to flourish?Our ecosystem seem to be pretty fragile and dependent on many outside influences.
It seems like nearly all lifeforms on the planet serve a purpose similar to checks and balances.One speices keeps another in check.
It would be hard to imagine if all creatures where carnivors.Wouldn't they just devour each outher and every other creature until there was no higher life on the planet?
Outside influences on our plaent such as the orbit of the earth the position of the moon temerature of our sun and even the orbits of other planets all affect earth.
Honestly i don't think evolution has an answer for the dependecies that cover almost every aspect of existence.
Just to comment on new guys post: Biblically our phsyical creation is supposed to be based on the eternal.Faith is stated as evidence of things unseen.The world and universe we know has an end while the spiritual one is unending and uncoruptable.
It doesn't seem like such a strech to believe that there is something outside of or even sustaining the matter universe we live in.If i recall correctly accepted theory says there has to be much more to this reality than we can observe,whole we can observe the affects of it.
It seems to me that without insects our world would become a trash heap.
Without something to feed on the insects they would ovewhelm the planet wouldn't they?
Wouldn't many types of vegetation fail to flourish?Our ecosystem seem to be pretty fragile and dependent on many outside influences.
It seems like nearly all lifeforms on the planet serve a purpose similar to checks and balances.One speices keeps another in check.
It would be hard to imagine if all creatures where carnivors.Wouldn't they just devour each outher and every other creature until there was no higher life on the planet?
Outside influences on our plaent such as the orbit of the earth the position of the moon temerature of our sun and even the orbits of other planets all affect earth.
Honestly i don't think evolution has an answer for the dependecies that cover almost every aspect of existence.
Just to comment on new guys post: Biblically our phsyical creation is supposed to be based on the eternal.Faith is stated as evidence of things unseen.The world and universe we know has an end while the spiritual one is unending and uncoruptable.
It doesn't seem like such a strech to believe that there is something outside of or even sustaining the matter universe we live in.If i recall correctly accepted theory says there has to be much more to this reality than we can observe,whole we can observe the affects of it.
To will
The dependencies are always changing, with species becoming extinct and other species changing to fill the vacated niches. Sometimes species fill a niche so well there is little change over long periods(sharks.crocodiles). Sometimes catastrophic events leave many niches empty(the meteor which ended the era of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago), mammals evolved to fill the niches left open by the death of the dinos. The reason it looks so balanced is that nature has had a relatively long period free of major catastrophes and most niches are currently filled, that could change tomorrow(or the next day) or man may upset the balance causing ecological disaster.
All of these processes(except the last) are the natural processes of evolution. The reason we fit so well on this planet is because we evolved on this planet to fit the environment.( we wouldn't evolve on this planet to fit the environment of Mars, would we???).
Grumpy
QUOTE
Honestly i don't think evolution has an answer for the dependecies that cover almost every aspect of existence.
The dependencies are always changing, with species becoming extinct and other species changing to fill the vacated niches. Sometimes species fill a niche so well there is little change over long periods(sharks.crocodiles). Sometimes catastrophic events leave many niches empty(the meteor which ended the era of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago), mammals evolved to fill the niches left open by the death of the dinos. The reason it looks so balanced is that nature has had a relatively long period free of major catastrophes and most niches are currently filled, that could change tomorrow(or the next day) or man may upset the balance causing ecological disaster.
All of these processes(except the last) are the natural processes of evolution. The reason we fit so well on this planet is because we evolved on this planet to fit the environment.( we wouldn't evolve on this planet to fit the environment of Mars, would we???).
Grumpy
Will,
Jolly good point Will!
Carry on.
Pops,
I have found irrefutable proof that God exists. About 20 years ago I read the New Testament of the Bible and was in complete awe of what I read - but it took me another thirteen years or so to accept Him into my life - when I did - a complete transformation took place - I now know, without a doubt, that there is a God. It now gives me great joy to know Him better and to tell everyone else about Him. You shoulda seen me seven years ago - I had a grin on my face 24 hours a day - since then I've run into a lot of poo-poo's and my grin has become more internal rather than external. But it's still there. You too can experience this - but I think it requires a sincere search on your part.
SoLoved
Jolly good point Will!
Carry on.
Pops,
I have found irrefutable proof that God exists. About 20 years ago I read the New Testament of the Bible and was in complete awe of what I read - but it took me another thirteen years or so to accept Him into my life - when I did - a complete transformation took place - I now know, without a doubt, that there is a God. It now gives me great joy to know Him better and to tell everyone else about Him. You shoulda seen me seven years ago - I had a grin on my face 24 hours a day - since then I've run into a lot of poo-poo's and my grin has become more internal rather than external. But it's still there. You too can experience this - but I think it requires a sincere search on your part.
SoLoved
Grumpy: I'll answer your post later on...gotta run(well, drive actually) to work. Talk to you later.
QUOTE
It seems like nearly all lifeforms on the planet serve a purpose similar to checks and balances.One speices keeps another in check.
It would be hard to imagine if all creatures where carnivors.Wouldn't they just devour each outher and every other creature until there was no higher life on the planet?
It would be hard to imagine if all creatures where carnivors.Wouldn't they just devour each outher and every other creature until there was no higher life on the planet?
All life on this planet fills or occupies a place where it can survive. Highly specialized animals normally go extinct when their habitat disappears and they cannot adapt to a new one. Like most theists, you are viewing the world backwards. Our planet does not fit the life that exists on it, but rather the opposite is true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It seems like nearly all lifeforms on the planet serve a purpose similar to checks and balances.One speices keeps another in check. It would be hard to imagine if all creatures where carnivors.Wouldn't they just devour each outher and every other creature until there was no higher life on the planet? |
All life on this planet fills or occupies a place where it can survive. Highly specialized animals normally go extinct when their habitat disappears and they cannot adapt to a new one. Like most theists, you are viewing the world backwards. Our planet does not fit the life that exists on it, but rather the opposite is true.
Outside influences on our plaent such as the orbit of the earth the position of the moon temerature of our sun and even the orbits of other planets all affect earth.
No, unlike what the hucksters claim, planetary alignments or the movements of other planets do not directly affect ours. If you believe that other planets affect us directly, then you are wrong.
QUOTE
Honestly i don't think evolution has an answer for the dependecies that cover almost every aspect of existence.
And again, evolution does not seek to answer such. Theists need to stop demanding that evolution address aspects of our existence that it does not seek to address.
QUOTE
Outside influences on our plaent such as the orbit of the earth the position of the moon temerature of our sun and even the orbits of other planets all affect earth.
Honestly i don't think evolution has an answer for the dependecies that cover almost every aspect of existence.
Honestly i don't think evolution has an answer for the dependecies that cover almost every aspect of existence.
The tidal forces from the moon affect us, and thats about it. And like Genesplicer said, Evolution does not seek to cover every aspect of evolution. A theory that would cover every aspect of evolution would be one incredibly dense theory.
I am going to go over the basics of what we would be doing scientifically. Evolution the theory is a model to describe what actually happened as life on this planet evolved. As a model it is most likely slightly simplified so we can use it.
So in science the most common process is that you find some unexplained phenomena. Then you build a model to try and explain it. The models are usually based on some assumptions that can be either experimentally verified or falsified. (Einsteins theory of Special relativity would fall apart if today the speed of light was measured in a vacuum and had a completely different value.). Then this model is tested to see if it holds true for the phenomena you were trying to explain. If it does, then you pull out some other predictions from it (hopefully it can make other predictions) and test those, and if those also are verified your model gains even more credibility.
Maybe one day there will be a theory that covers every aspect of existance, but that will contain a whole lot more information than evolution does.
Look at the current glamor subject in physics, String Theory, which is hoping to be the theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics. This theory has been worked on for like 25 years or more, by 100's of physicists and its so complex they don't even have the actual equations yet, only simplifications of the equations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Outside influences on our plaent such as the orbit of the earth the position of the moon temerature of our sun and even the orbits of other planets all affect earth. Honestly i don't think evolution has an answer for the dependecies that cover almost every aspect of existence. |
The tidal forces from the moon affect us, and thats about it. And like Genesplicer said, Evolution does not seek to cover every aspect of evolution. A theory that would cover every aspect of evolution would be one incredibly dense theory.
I am going to go over the basics of what we would be doing scientifically. Evolution the theory is a model to describe what actually happened as life on this planet evolved. As a model it is most likely slightly simplified so we can use it.
So in science the most common process is that you find some unexplained phenomena. Then you build a model to try and explain it. The models are usually based on some assumptions that can be either experimentally verified or falsified. (Einsteins theory of Special relativity would fall apart if today the speed of light was measured in a vacuum and had a completely different value.). Then this model is tested to see if it holds true for the phenomena you were trying to explain. If it does, then you pull out some other predictions from it (hopefully it can make other predictions) and test those, and if those also are verified your model gains even more credibility.
Maybe one day there will be a theory that covers every aspect of existance, but that will contain a whole lot more information than evolution does.
Look at the current glamor subject in physics, String Theory, which is hoping to be the theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics. This theory has been worked on for like 25 years or more, by 100's of physicists and its so complex they don't even have the actual equations yet, only simplifications of the equations.
As I have said before, I will not try to change your belief in the Bible, that is your right. Though I do not equate other books to scripture, Iread a book years ago called "Everything I Need To Know, I Learned In Kindergarten". The message in this book is profound, the gist being that humans learn their morals by the time they are 5 years old. This consists mostly of the Golden Rule(Do unto others...) learned through interactions with other children and adults. Before this age children do not understand the Bible or other sources of morality, yet they have a basic sense of morality by the fifth year. I believe the premise expounded by this book, but my belief would not meet the standard of scientific evidence. To meet that standard I would have to do years of study and observation of children, including repeatable experimentation(tasks, games, surveys), collate the data, submit it to peer review. If the only evidence I had was a copy of the book and my belief then, no matter how true I believed the book to be, I would never be able to meet the standard of scientific evidence, no matter how many people I persuaded that the book was true. Would that affect my belief in the book? No, I believe it because of my experiences which convince me it is true. Would that mean the book is not true? No,but I could not provide scientifically convincing evidence of that. Would that mean that book was of no value? No,it's insite is very valuable to me.
I know the above example is not in the same league as the Bible, but the principle is the same. The Bible has to be accepted on faith,because it answers the inner questions science cannot touch. Science must subject all evidence to the scientific method, faith is not sufficient for valid evidence. It can answer questions about the physical world but cannot say anything about the spiritual realm. When religion and science stay within their boundaries there is no conflict between them. They,together, give a fuller answer to the questions of life than either alone can. But science cannot answer spiritual questions, nor can religion answer scientific questions.
Those are my thoughts on the subject(without reference to any other source). I would be interested in yours.
Grumpy, I think you explained your point very well here, and I hope Soloved understands it, but it doesn't seem so.
QUOTE
I have found irrefutable proof that God exists. About 20 years ago I read the New Testament of the Bible and was in complete awe of what I read - but it took me another thirteen years or so to accept Him into my life - when I did - a complete transformation took place - I now know, without a doubt, that there is a God. It now gives me great joy to know Him better and to tell everyone else about Him. You shoulda seen me seven years ago - I had a grin on my face 24 hours a day - since then I've run into a lot of poo-poo's and my grin has become more internal rather than external. But it's still there. You too can experience this - but I think it requires a sincere search on your part.
You have found irrefutable internal proof. Everything you speak of is great for you, but everything that happened was internal. In your thoughts, your beliefs, and maybe god even 'spoke' to you. But the thing is, that is not scientific proof. How are you going to recreate, for everyone to see, the moment that you fully accepted god into your life? I doubt you could, and without reproducability you can not call it scientific proof. Also, if you were trying to prove to me that god existed what would you do? Pray for him to prove to me his existance. If there is a god, my thoughts are he would either completely ignore you, or 'say' that if you need him to prove his existance to someone else for validation, then you don't truly believe. If you are so confident in your faith, why do you need to prove it to us? My thoughts are you shouldn't have to.
Just a comment about the conversation on the school system, and teaching in government schools and home schooling. Not to say that everything taught in schools is the best thing to be taught, or even right, but we hire educators because no parent knows it all. You might tell your kids that when they are young, or they might think it (I thought my dad knew everything until I was probably a young teenager.....he knows an unbelievable amount of stuff). The best a parent could do would be to know a little bit of stuff about a lot of things (thats my dad, and he 'tricked' with a vast variety of knowledge that he knew everything). When you go to school, after elementary school you usually have different teachers for different subjects, and the teachers knowledge is much more specialized.
Soloved, you might be surprised, but I do not really like how science is taught in schools. I think evolution should be taught, because right or wrong, it is the best SCIENTIFIC theory on that subject around. And as far as I know, the only one (I know you think that ID is a scientific theory, but I am getting sick of explaining to you why its not repeatedly, so please don't bring it up at the moment) I think that more time needs to be spent teaching the scientific method, and illustrating how important the scientific method is. When I got to university, and more so when I started doing real physics labs did I realize how important being rigorous is! So, evolutionary research is rigorous, but anyone who isn't in the field doesn't no how rigorous it is, and this makes them think that the theory isn't on solid observable foundations. Also, in schools it NEEDS to be stressed that if a theory is never 100% true, only true until evidence is found against it, so, at least in 'theory' evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow, although that is doubtful. Also, when it comes to homeschooling, for a child who is much 'brighter' than their parents they will reach a point where the parent can no longer teach them things.
I would like to ask Soloved a question. If you had a child who you taught Genisis and creation to, and then they learned of evolution, and the only thing that would make them happy is to study evolution, and research evolution how would you handle that? Because as a parent you don't want to push your prejudices onto your kids, no matter what they are. As you have said, present them with the information and let them decide for themselves right? But I just wonder if that also counts for deciding against your beliefs.
QUOTE
I would like to ask Soloved a question. If you had a child who you taught Genisis and creation to, and then they learned of evolution, and the only thing that would make them happy is to study evolution, and research evolution how would you handle that? Because as a parent you don't want to push your prejudices onto your kids, no matter what they are. As you have said, present them with the information and let them decide for themselves right? But I just wonder if that also counts for deciding against your beliefs.
They are free to do as they wish.
Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
My kids love to debate me on a variety of subjects - from politics to religion to football and more. It's all part of the process.
I imagine you would feel much the same way if the situation were reversed, no?
SoLoved
QUOTE (SoLoved+Oct 20 2005, 10:02 PM)
They are free to do as they wish.
Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
My kids love to debate me on a variety of subjects - from politics to religion to football and more. It's all part of the process.
I imagine you would feel much the same way if the situation were reversed, no?
SoLoved
Except if a child is "trained up in the way he should go", meaning filling his impressionable mind with Creation Science, and then from someone s/he trusts IMPLICITLY, certainly could cause cognitive dissonance when confronted with Science taught by people they don't particularly like (teachers) and then when Dad confirms that the teachers are Wrong, of course one can see a child "not departing from it"
You provided evidence that this was the case for you when you pointed out that "you did not believe your teachers when they told you that Dinosaurs existed", it took the SCIENCE, i.e. seeing the fossils in a museum to force you to reconsider. Even then you resolved your cognitive dissonance by coming up with an illogical conclusion as to where dinosaurs fit within the history of life on the planet. Compressing their formidable 200 million year presence into a ridiculously short 2,000 year period.
On the other hand, allow a child to learn Science, without prejudice and that child will then most likely not grow up to accept some ancient myth in place of well tested scientific proof. For a great many people, who also have "faith", they find it easy to reconcile the allegorical history presented in the old testament with reality as discovered through rigorous scientific analysis.
We are now dealing with a growing body of "pseudoscience" that purportedly shows that either the Old Testament is literally true or that Evolution is "not true". These pseudoscientific explanations apparently appeals to people with some scientific training, but not enough to see the gaping holes in these weak "scientific" arguments.
Arthur
Soloved,
When I was a little boy (probably younger than 6) I asked my mom how do we KNOW there is a god. She told me that it is something that I must decide for myself and that many people spend their entire lives looking for the answer to that question. She also felt it was very important that I see the movie Inherit The Wind. (Thanks mom. ;o)
40 + years later and I am no closer to answering that original question. In fact, I have found the hypothesis to be untestable.
But let’s suppose that I accept your hypothesis that god does exist. With the innocent eyes of my long lost youth I have to ask the next question… Where did god come from? If you can’t answer that question, then you really haven’t answered anything for me.
BTW – my mom is a very religious lady.
“I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.” – Elvis Costello
When I was a little boy (probably younger than 6) I asked my mom how do we KNOW there is a god. She told me that it is something that I must decide for myself and that many people spend their entire lives looking for the answer to that question. She also felt it was very important that I see the movie Inherit The Wind. (Thanks mom. ;o)
40 + years later and I am no closer to answering that original question. In fact, I have found the hypothesis to be untestable.
But let’s suppose that I accept your hypothesis that god does exist. With the innocent eyes of my long lost youth I have to ask the next question… Where did god come from? If you can’t answer that question, then you really haven’t answered anything for me.
BTW – my mom is a very religious lady.
“I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.” – Elvis Costello
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.QUOTE (Steveo+Oct 20 2005, 04:52 PM)
... Pray for him to prove to me his existance ...
I am praying for you.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
An Experiment You Can Do
How to be Saved
.
I am praying for you.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
An Experiment You Can Do
How to be Saved
.
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Oct 21 2005, 01:08 PM)
An Experiment You Can Do
How to be Saved
.
Your “experiment” is nothing more than a prayer and an argument that you must do so before you die or else “it may be too late”. As always, fear, threats and commands from the “moral superiors”. You have nothing else to offer and what you offer holds no sway over rational and skeptical minds.
In order to attempt to understand this subject, I've been reading up a bit on it. I have come to the conclusion that people following ID just cannot accept the fact that the universe may be random. Also, I am wondering: What Intelligent Designer created all of this? You claim that ID is not religious, that it is scientific, so I want to know who you think is the Architect of the Universe.
A paper I've read recently - (Careful... this is a PDF) - attempts to sound scientific. I applaud the attempt. The paper defines what certain words mean ("natural", "selection", etc. ) However, I just can't believe it. Most of it is based on the thought pattern of "Things look complex, and since I cannot fathom it happening by chance, then an Intelligent Designer must have done this". You are excluding Darwin's ideas because you aren't intelligent enough to grasp the concept.
That same paper goes so far to say
"It was "artificial" (i.e., intelligence-driven) selection that Charles Darwin had in mind when he coined his term "natural" selection."
I'm rather baffled by that statement. Would that not then mean that humans are Artificial Beings, as we are intelligence driven? I would think that nature is driven by a form of intelligence, and that Artificial Intelligence is Designed.
Then, defining "selection":
Selection is a term that implies the making of a choice, a decision. Synonyms include picking out, choosing, and preferring. A mindless process cannot "select" in this sense. ... The term "natural selection" is an oxymoron and its widespread use contributes to the pervasive confusion so characterisitic of this topic
This once again baffles me. The "mindless processes" that Darwin spoke of are environmental factors, availability of food, etc. Animals were never called "mindless processes".
One of the tenets of ID is to use "objective science" to attempt to define the origins of life. However, everything that I read on this subject is slanted and biased in favor of a higher power or a supreme being. Call it what you will, ID People, but your ideas stink of religion. Could you really look me in the eyes and tell me that an alien, not God, is the intelligent designer? You don't want to think that's possible...you are just trying to get Creationism back into public schools.
When you and your religions pay taxes, then you'll get my vote on ID being taught using public tax funds. Until then, take your seven days and shove them up yer a$$.
A paper I've read recently - (Careful... this is a PDF) - attempts to sound scientific. I applaud the attempt. The paper defines what certain words mean ("natural", "selection", etc. ) However, I just can't believe it. Most of it is based on the thought pattern of "Things look complex, and since I cannot fathom it happening by chance, then an Intelligent Designer must have done this". You are excluding Darwin's ideas because you aren't intelligent enough to grasp the concept.
That same paper goes so far to say
"It was "artificial" (i.e., intelligence-driven) selection that Charles Darwin had in mind when he coined his term "natural" selection."
I'm rather baffled by that statement. Would that not then mean that humans are Artificial Beings, as we are intelligence driven? I would think that nature is driven by a form of intelligence, and that Artificial Intelligence is Designed.
Then, defining "selection":
Selection is a term that implies the making of a choice, a decision. Synonyms include picking out, choosing, and preferring. A mindless process cannot "select" in this sense. ... The term "natural selection" is an oxymoron and its widespread use contributes to the pervasive confusion so characterisitic of this topic
This once again baffles me. The "mindless processes" that Darwin spoke of are environmental factors, availability of food, etc. Animals were never called "mindless processes".
One of the tenets of ID is to use "objective science" to attempt to define the origins of life. However, everything that I read on this subject is slanted and biased in favor of a higher power or a supreme being. Call it what you will, ID People, but your ideas stink of religion. Could you really look me in the eyes and tell me that an alien, not God, is the intelligent designer? You don't want to think that's possible...you are just trying to get Creationism back into public schools.
When you and your religions pay taxes, then you'll get my vote on ID being taught using public tax funds. Until then, take your seven days and shove them up yer a$$.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.QUOTE (Glenn Milam+Oct 11 2005, 11:56 PM)
... I mean, if things are so complex that they had to be designed, then by that same logic, the designer is so complex he/she/it had to be designed. And that designer is so complex that there had to be a more complex designer. It's an endless enigma. ...
You could use this same argument against evolution. If evolution is change, it only occurs if something exists before evolution commences; therefore, the original universe cannot be the product of evolution. The gap in your logic is answered by the Holy Bible.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. (Genesis 1:1)
God is a Spirit who created the physical universe. God governs the physical universe, but the physical universe does not govern God. It is observable that entropy is a law of the physical universe. Entropy increases with time tending to a more and more disorganized system. At a state of 100% entropy there is no differentialtion in physical substance, no motion and no evolution.
The argument that evolution accounts for low entropy in parts of the physical usniverse at the expense of high entropy in other parts is falsified by calculating the total organizational potential of evolution working over the total duration of the universe.
The total evolutionary potential is 0% compared to the organized state of things that are observable in the universe; therefore, it is irrational to think that evolution can account for the high state of organizational complexity found in the physical universe. (see Evolution is Nothing)
Are you saying that children should not trust their parents? From a strictly biological perspective even - the odds are that parents are more likely to have their child's best interests at heart - compared to a teacher.
It works both ways- if a child's mind is filled with an evolution based upbringing - there's a good chance they will not depart from it. But hopefully the truth will set the child free.
Are you saying that children should not trust their parents? From a strictly biological perspective even - the odds are that parents are more likely to have their child's best interests at heart - compared to a teacher.
It works both ways- if a child's mind is filled with an evolution based upbringing - there's a good chance they will not depart from it. But hopefully the truth will set the child free.
You provided evidence that this was the case for you when you pointed out that "you did not believe your teachers when they told you that Dinosaurs existed", it took the SCIENCE, i.e. seeing the fossils in a museum to force you to reconsider. Even then you resolved your cognitive dissonance by coming up with an illogical conclusion as to where dinosaurs fit within the history of life on the planet. Compressing their formidable 200 million year presence into a ridiculously short 2,000 year period.
Not so. I did not go to church as a child. No one told me one way or the other whether dinosaur's were real or not. The only reason I didn't believe in the existence of dinosaur's was because I had never seen one. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, kinda like the God thing, wouldn't you say.
Seeing God would force atheists to reconsider, but......
John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Again, I did not have a religious upbringing. I didn't even read the Bible until I was an adult - but for me - the Bible put everything into perspective, and when I accepted the Lord into my life - He showed me He was real.
So, for the sincere thinkers out there, persistence and a willingness to believe will net the irrefutible proof you seek. This is a personal journey and experiment that only you can do as an individual - which is just great when you think about it. No scientists to tell you whether your experiment failed or not. Because you will know with your whole being that it is a successful experiment. Upon completion of your experiment, God sends you, all giddy with fabulous feelings of joy and excitement, out into a disbelieving critical world. Didn't someone ask if God had a sense of humor? Because this makes for a great show. But that's OK, because you know He's there, holding you up. The Lord is your Shepherd, you shall not want.
Again, I did not have a religious upbringing. I didn't even read the Bible until I was an adult - but for me - the Bible put everything into perspective, and when I accepted the Lord into my life - He showed me He was real.
So, for the sincere thinkers out there, persistence and a willingness to believe will net the irrefutible proof you seek. This is a personal journey and experiment that only you can do as an individual - which is just great when you think about it. No scientists to tell you whether your experiment failed or not. Because you will know with your whole being that it is a successful experiment. Upon completion of your experiment, God sends you, all giddy with fabulous feelings of joy and excitement, out into a disbelieving critical world. Didn't someone ask if God had a sense of humor? Because this makes for a great show. But that's OK, because you know He's there, holding you up. The Lord is your Shepherd, you shall not want.
We are now dealing with a growing body of "pseudoscience" that purportedly shows that either the Old Testament is literally true or that Evolution is "not true". These pseudoscientific explanations apparently appeals to people with some scientific training, but not enough to see the gaping holes in these weak "scientific" arguments.
'Pseudoevolution' explanations rely too heavily on an unproven theory of macroevolution. 'Pseudoevolution' relies too heavily on the beelions/meelions years idea as well.
People are reasonable. You are a 'people' and I am a 'people' - we are reasonable. You should be able to see that our Universe was designed. We should be able to see some merit in your brand of science. I believe we do. We have admitted to microevolution, but we don't agree with macroevolution, naturalism, materialism, and secularism.
The liberal groups in this world seem to have an agenda that seeks to remove every mention of God from their world. They seem to stand for nearly everything I am opposed to. The majority of liberals believe in evolution. Now here is a direct accusation by association for you - Because of this fact, it makes it very difficult for us to accept your theory.
For example, I do not believe in abortion. I have a question for y'all:
Explain to me, with your evolution perspective, how can you justify the willful destruction of a living, growing, human being?
When I say it is murder, how can you define it as anything else?
And, if you are a pro-life evolutionist - then explain the facts or beliefs behind that stance. Then start explaining it to planned parenthood.
Again, evolution has nothing to do with abortion, but these types of beliefs are most associated with liberals, and most liberals believe in evolution. No insult is intended. My intent is to answer those who are asking why/how evolution is responsible for poor choices on the part of its proponents. I want evolutionists to understand how destructive the results of a belief in evolution can be.
And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
Just for the record, - you can do this experiment in secret - no one has to know. If I'm wrong, oh well (which I'm not). But if you're wrong, oh boy.
SoLoved
And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
Just for the record, - you can do this experiment in secret - no one has to know. If I'm wrong, oh well (which I'm not). But if you're wrong, oh boy.
SoLoved
When you and your religions pay taxes, then you'll get my vote on ID being taught using public tax funds. Until then, take your seven days and shove them up yer a$$.
P.S. You seem to forget - it's all those extreme right - Christian conservatives - rich republicans - that are paying most of the taxes. So, we'll take your vote now. One enema coming right up.
You could use this same argument against evolution. If evolution is change, it only occurs if something exists before evolution commences; therefore, the original universe cannot be the product of evolution. The gap in your logic is answered by the Holy Bible.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. (Genesis 1:1)
God is a Spirit who created the physical universe. God governs the physical universe, but the physical universe does not govern God. It is observable that entropy is a law of the physical universe. Entropy increases with time tending to a more and more disorganized system. At a state of 100% entropy there is no differentialtion in physical substance, no motion and no evolution.
The argument that evolution accounts for low entropy in parts of the physical usniverse at the expense of high entropy in other parts is falsified by calculating the total organizational potential of evolution working over the total duration of the universe.
The total evolutionary potential is 0% compared to the organized state of things that are observable in the universe; therefore, it is irrational to think that evolution can account for the high state of organizational complexity found in the physical universe. (see Evolution is Nothing)
QUOTE (Glenn Milam+Oct 11 2005, 11:56 PM)
... And, if this is not a religious concept, why are there so many quotes from the bible in this thread?
The title of this thread contains three distinct subjects, Intelligent Design, Creation, and mythology.
Is Intelligent Design a religious concept?
I read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box a couple of years ago. I enjoyed reading about the complex things that science has discovered, but I got the distinct impression from reading the book that Behe is still an evolutionist at heart. He simply wants his colleagues to answer the challenge to explain in evolutionary terms how complex biochemical systems could evolve. I did not find anything particularly religious in the book, nor do I recall him coming to the conclusion that the evidence of intelligent design should compel anyone believe that life on earth was created by God. The following quote from an interview with Dr. Behe about Darwin's Black Box.
The Evolution of a Skeptic
Why are there so many quotes from the Bible?
The Holy Bible is revealed truth. The probability that it is the work of human beings is 0%. It is logical to accept it for what it purports to be, the inspired Word of God. It has answers to questions that evolutionsts ask but which evolution is not capable of answering.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy G h o s t . (II Peter 1:20-21)
Is evolution mythology?
The account of the creation of the heavens and the earth in the Holy Bible is revealed truth. The scientific evidence refuting evolution makes it logical to conclude that evolution is mythology. It is a belief system that persists in spite of scientific proof that it is a lie. (see "Science as Mythology" by Daniel Boorstin, Science Digest, December 1984 p. 82)
How to be Saved
.
The title of this thread contains three distinct subjects, Intelligent Design, Creation, and mythology.
Is Intelligent Design a religious concept?
I read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box a couple of years ago. I enjoyed reading about the complex things that science has discovered, but I got the distinct impression from reading the book that Behe is still an evolutionist at heart. He simply wants his colleagues to answer the challenge to explain in evolutionary terms how complex biochemical systems could evolve. I did not find anything particularly religious in the book, nor do I recall him coming to the conclusion that the evidence of intelligent design should compel anyone believe that life on earth was created by God. The following quote from an interview with Dr. Behe about Darwin's Black Box.
The Evolution of a Skeptic
QUOTE
RI: Can a non-theist accept the concept of intelligent design?
Behe: Yes, I think so. But admittedly it would be psychologically difficult for them. I like to tell the story of Francis Crick, who of course is the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double-helical shape of DNA. Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the idea that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life.
Well, that's an unusual idea, but you can see that Crick's idea fits with intelligent design theory also; he's invoking an outside cause to get life started. If Francis Crick claimed intelligent aliens not only seeded life but actually designed life that is on the earth, I could not point at a biochemical system and argue against him. I might think it was a little far-fetched, but I would have to go to philosophical or theological or historical arguments to rebut that. So, yes, I think non- theists could come to a conclusion of intelligent design, but realistically I think it will be psychologically difficult for them.
Behe: Yes, I think so. But admittedly it would be psychologically difficult for them. I like to tell the story of Francis Crick, who of course is the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double-helical shape of DNA. Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the idea that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life.
Well, that's an unusual idea, but you can see that Crick's idea fits with intelligent design theory also; he's invoking an outside cause to get life started. If Francis Crick claimed intelligent aliens not only seeded life but actually designed life that is on the earth, I could not point at a biochemical system and argue against him. I might think it was a little far-fetched, but I would have to go to philosophical or theological or historical arguments to rebut that. So, yes, I think non- theists could come to a conclusion of intelligent design, but realistically I think it will be psychologically difficult for them.
Why are there so many quotes from the Bible?
The Holy Bible is revealed truth. The probability that it is the work of human beings is 0%. It is logical to accept it for what it purports to be, the inspired Word of God. It has answers to questions that evolutionsts ask but which evolution is not capable of answering.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy G h o s t . (II Peter 1:20-21)
Is evolution mythology?
The account of the creation of the heavens and the earth in the Holy Bible is revealed truth. The scientific evidence refuting evolution makes it logical to conclude that evolution is mythology. It is a belief system that persists in spite of scientific proof that it is a lie. (see "Science as Mythology" by Daniel Boorstin, Science Digest, December 1984 p. 82)
How to be Saved
.
QUOTE
Except if a child is "trained up in the way he should go", meaning filling his impressionable mind with Creation Science, and then from someone s/he trusts IMPLICITLY, certainly could cause cognitive dissonance when confronted with Science taught by people they don't particularly like (teachers) and then when Dad confirms that the teachers are Wrong, of course one can see a child "not departing from it"
Are you saying that children should not trust their parents? From a strictly biological perspective even - the odds are that parents are more likely to have their child's best interests at heart - compared to a teacher.
It works both ways- if a child's mind is filled with an evolution based upbringing - there's a good chance they will not depart from it. But hopefully the truth will set the child free.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Except if a child is "trained up in the way he should go", meaning filling his impressionable mind with Creation Science, and then from someone s/he trusts IMPLICITLY, certainly could cause cognitive dissonance when confronted with Science taught by people they don't particularly like (teachers) and then when Dad confirms that the teachers are Wrong, of course one can see a child "not departing from it" |
Are you saying that children should not trust their parents? From a strictly biological perspective even - the odds are that parents are more likely to have their child's best interests at heart - compared to a teacher.
It works both ways- if a child's mind is filled with an evolution based upbringing - there's a good chance they will not depart from it. But hopefully the truth will set the child free.
You provided evidence that this was the case for you when you pointed out that "you did not believe your teachers when they told you that Dinosaurs existed", it took the SCIENCE, i.e. seeing the fossils in a museum to force you to reconsider. Even then you resolved your cognitive dissonance by coming up with an illogical conclusion as to where dinosaurs fit within the history of life on the planet. Compressing their formidable 200 million year presence into a ridiculously short 2,000 year period.
Not so. I did not go to church as a child. No one told me one way or the other whether dinosaur's were real or not. The only reason I didn't believe in the existence of dinosaur's was because I had never seen one. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, kinda like the God thing, wouldn't you say.
Seeing God would force atheists to reconsider, but......
John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
QUOTE
On the other hand, allow a child to learn Science, without prejudice and that child will then most likely not grow up to accept some ancient myth in place of well tested scientific proof. For a great many people, who also have "faith", they find it easy to reconcile the allegorical history presented in the old testament with reality as discovered through rigorous scientific analysis
Again, I did not have a religious upbringing. I didn't even read the Bible until I was an adult - but for me - the Bible put everything into perspective, and when I accepted the Lord into my life - He showed me He was real.
So, for the sincere thinkers out there, persistence and a willingness to believe will net the irrefutible proof you seek. This is a personal journey and experiment that only you can do as an individual - which is just great when you think about it. No scientists to tell you whether your experiment failed or not. Because you will know with your whole being that it is a successful experiment. Upon completion of your experiment, God sends you, all giddy with fabulous feelings of joy and excitement, out into a disbelieving critical world. Didn't someone ask if God had a sense of humor? Because this makes for a great show. But that's OK, because you know He's there, holding you up. The Lord is your Shepherd, you shall not want.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On the other hand, allow a child to learn Science, without prejudice and that child will then most likely not grow up to accept some ancient myth in place of well tested scientific proof. For a great many people, who also have "faith", they find it easy to reconcile the allegorical history presented in the old testament with reality as discovered through rigorous scientific analysis |
Again, I did not have a religious upbringing. I didn't even read the Bible until I was an adult - but for me - the Bible put everything into perspective, and when I accepted the Lord into my life - He showed me He was real.
So, for the sincere thinkers out there, persistence and a willingness to believe will net the irrefutible proof you seek. This is a personal journey and experiment that only you can do as an individual - which is just great when you think about it. No scientists to tell you whether your experiment failed or not. Because you will know with your whole being that it is a successful experiment. Upon completion of your experiment, God sends you, all giddy with fabulous feelings of joy and excitement, out into a disbelieving critical world. Didn't someone ask if God had a sense of humor? Because this makes for a great show. But that's OK, because you know He's there, holding you up. The Lord is your Shepherd, you shall not want.
We are now dealing with a growing body of "pseudoscience" that purportedly shows that either the Old Testament is literally true or that Evolution is "not true". These pseudoscientific explanations apparently appeals to people with some scientific training, but not enough to see the gaping holes in these weak "scientific" arguments.
'Pseudoevolution' explanations rely too heavily on an unproven theory of macroevolution. 'Pseudoevolution' relies too heavily on the beelions/meelions years idea as well.
People are reasonable. You are a 'people' and I am a 'people' - we are reasonable. You should be able to see that our Universe was designed. We should be able to see some merit in your brand of science. I believe we do. We have admitted to microevolution, but we don't agree with macroevolution, naturalism, materialism, and secularism.
The liberal groups in this world seem to have an agenda that seeks to remove every mention of God from their world. They seem to stand for nearly everything I am opposed to. The majority of liberals believe in evolution. Now here is a direct accusation by association for you - Because of this fact, it makes it very difficult for us to accept your theory.
For example, I do not believe in abortion. I have a question for y'all:
Explain to me, with your evolution perspective, how can you justify the willful destruction of a living, growing, human being?
When I say it is murder, how can you define it as anything else?
And, if you are a pro-life evolutionist - then explain the facts or beliefs behind that stance. Then start explaining it to planned parenthood.
Again, evolution has nothing to do with abortion, but these types of beliefs are most associated with liberals, and most liberals believe in evolution. No insult is intended. My intent is to answer those who are asking why/how evolution is responsible for poor choices on the part of its proponents. I want evolutionists to understand how destructive the results of a belief in evolution can be.
QUOTE
Your “experiment” is nothing more than a prayer and an argument that you must do so before you die or else “it may be too late”. As always, fear, threats and commands from the “moral superiors”. You have nothing else to offer and what you offer holds no sway over rational and skeptical minds.
And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
Just for the record, - you can do this experiment in secret - no one has to know. If I'm wrong, oh well (which I'm not). But if you're wrong, oh boy.
SoLovedQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your “experiment” is nothing more than a prayer and an argument that you must do so before you die or else “it may be too late”. As always, fear, threats and commands from the “moral superiors”. You have nothing else to offer and what you offer holds no sway over rational and skeptical minds. |
And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
Just for the record, - you can do this experiment in secret - no one has to know. If I'm wrong, oh well (which I'm not). But if you're wrong, oh boy.
SoLovedWhen you and your religions pay taxes, then you'll get my vote on ID being taught using public tax funds. Until then, take your seven days and shove them up yer a$$.
P.S. You seem to forget - it's all those extreme right - Christian conservatives - rich republicans - that are paying most of the taxes. So, we'll take your vote now. One enema coming right up.
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Oct 21 2005, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE (Glenn Milam+Oct 11 2005, 11:56 PM)
... I mean, if things are so complex that they had to be designed, then by that same logic, the designer is so complex he/she/it had to be designed. And that designer is so complex that there had to be a more complex designer. It's an endless enigma. ...
You could use this same argument against evolution. If evolution is change, it only occurs if something exists before evolution commences; therefore, the original universe cannot be the product of evolution. The gap in your logic is answered by the Holy Bible.
Why are there so many quotes from the Bible?
The Holy Bible is revealed truth. The probability that it is the work of human beings is 0%. It is logical to accept it for what it purports to be, the inspired Word of God. It has answers to questions that evolutionsts ask but which evolution is not capable of answering.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy G h o s t . (II Peter 1:20-21)
One more time... evolution does NOT even attempt to explain the origin of life... let alone the origin of the universe. (Why the universe bothers to exist is a question better left to philosophers.)
And the second quote.... Reminds me of Fonzie's logic in Happy Daze. Something to the effect of.
Richie: "How do you know she's a virgin?"
Fonz: "Because she said she is."
Richie: "How do you know she's not lying?"
Fonz: "Hey.. Virgins don't lie."
Ayyy, who can argue with the Fonz. I always did like that character.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
An Experiment You Can Do
How to be Saved
.
Your “experiment” is nothing more than a prayer and an argument that you must do so before you die or else “it may be too late”. As always, fear, threats and commands from the “moral superiors”. You have nothing else to offer and what you offer holds no sway over rational and skeptical minds.
Jesus Christ and a skeptic are standing at an intersection directing traffic. As you approach the intersection, Jesus informs you that the straight and narrow way leads Heaven and that all the other ways lead to hell. The skeptic tells you that none of the ways lead to Heaven. Which one should you believe?
I chose to believe Jesus. I got the exact results that the Holy Bible said I should get; forgiveness of sins, joyful abundant life, victory over bad habits, peace in my heart that the world cannot take away, and many other wonderful things that I never had before and never would have had without the help of the Lord Jesus Christ. By all observable evidence, I am on the way that leads to Heaven.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:43-47)
How to be Saved
.
You could use this same argument against evolution. If evolution is change, it only occurs if something exists before evolution commences; therefore, the original universe cannot be the product of evolution. The gap in your logic is answered by the Holy Bible.
Why are there so many quotes from the Bible?
The Holy Bible is revealed truth. The probability that it is the work of human beings is 0%. It is logical to accept it for what it purports to be, the inspired Word of God. It has answers to questions that evolutionsts ask but which evolution is not capable of answering.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy G h o s t . (II Peter 1:20-21)
One more time... evolution does NOT even attempt to explain the origin of life... let alone the origin of the universe. (Why the universe bothers to exist is a question better left to philosophers.)
And the second quote.... Reminds me of Fonzie's logic in Happy Daze. Something to the effect of.
Richie: "How do you know she's a virgin?"
Fonz: "Because she said she is."
Richie: "How do you know she's not lying?"
Fonz: "Hey.. Virgins don't lie."
Ayyy, who can argue with the Fonz. I always did like that character.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Oct 21 2005, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Oct 21 2005, 01:08 PM)
An Experiment You Can Do
How to be Saved
.
Your “experiment” is nothing more than a prayer and an argument that you must do so before you die or else “it may be too late”. As always, fear, threats and commands from the “moral superiors”. You have nothing else to offer and what you offer holds no sway over rational and skeptical minds.
Jesus Christ and a skeptic are standing at an intersection directing traffic. As you approach the intersection, Jesus informs you that the straight and narrow way leads Heaven and that all the other ways lead to hell. The skeptic tells you that none of the ways lead to Heaven. Which one should you believe?
I chose to believe Jesus. I got the exact results that the Holy Bible said I should get; forgiveness of sins, joyful abundant life, victory over bad habits, peace in my heart that the world cannot take away, and many other wonderful things that I never had before and never would have had without the help of the Lord Jesus Christ. By all observable evidence, I am on the way that leads to Heaven.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:43-47)
How to be Saved
.
sostupid
The fact that macro evolution occurred is shown in the fossil record, the only people who can deny that fact are those IGNORANT of the evidence or those who choose to be ignorant because of religious beliefs or willful stupidity.
The evidence that the Earth is old(4.5 million years) is so compelling that to deny it is the same as denying gravity or that the Earth orbits the sun.
These facts are not questioned by any real scientist who knows these disciplines.
The fact that macro evolution occurred is shown in the fossil record, the only people who can deny that fact are those IGNORANT of the evidence or those who choose to be ignorant because of religious beliefs or willful stupidity.
The evidence that the Earth is old(4.5 million years) is so compelling that to deny it is the same as denying gravity or that the Earth orbits the sun.
These facts are not questioned by any real scientist who knows these disciplines.
People are reasonable. You are a 'people' and I am a 'people' - we are reasonable. You should be able to see that our Universe was designed. We should be able to see some merit in your brand of science. I believe we do. We have admitted to microevolution, but we don't agree with macroevolution, naturalism, materialism, and secularism.
Then you are in error. Nothing we see in this universe requires a supernatural explanation.
As you inadvertently found in a previous post, an argument could be made that the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to be liberal.
As you inadvertently found in a previous post, an argument could be made that the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to be liberal.
For example, I do not believe in abortion. I have a question for y'all:
Explain to me, with your evolution perspective, how can you justify the willful destruction of a living, growing, human being?
When I say it is murder, how can you define it as anything else?
And, if you are a pro-life evolutionist - then explain the facts or beliefs behind that stance. Then start explaining it to planned parenthood.
Again, evolution has nothing to do with abortion, but these types of beliefs are most associated with liberals, and most liberals believe in evolution. No insult is intended. My intent is to answer those who are asking why/how evolution is responsible for poor choices on the part of its proponents. I want evolutionists to understand how destructive the results of a belief in evolution can be.
And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
Must you constantly show how truly stupid you can be??? Alright, alright, we get it, nobody can be as stupid as you. Evolution isn't. Isn't what? Isn't responsible for poor choices. Belief in evolution just shows the acceptance of reality.
Your right, believing in the right of a woman to control her own body(as opposed to people like you doing so) is a sign of intelligence making it more likely for that person to be a liberal.
Why does everything you post have to be so insulting and offensive. is it like Turrets syndrome where everyone who thinks differently than you is wrong??? You are an evil little man, like a snail, you leave slime trails wherever you go, your moral bankruptcy is only matched by your intellectual deficits. You never learn, even though we have tried repeatedly to explain why you are wrong, you can't understand the simplest concepts, your hopelessly, terminally stupid.
Most Christians have no problem with evolution
Most Evolutionists believe in God
And then there's sostupid
WHERE'S THAT APOLOGY???
Grumpy
As it has been pointed out over and over SoLoved, purely selfish motives of wanting to live in a rational and mutually respective society is enough for people to act in a “moral” fashion. There always have been, are and always will be immoral people, even those who hide by use of your religion.
Maybe you are one of those type of people who need someone or something over you threatening you with punishment for you to behave in a civilized manner, but that is not the case for most people.
And again, you are either confused or simply ignorant. Evolution does not seek to address morality, philosophy or any other subject than evolution. Your religion may seek to be the end-all and be-all to everything in life, but scientific disciplines do not have the same ambitions.
As it has been pointed out over and over SoLoved, purely selfish motives of wanting to live in a rational and mutually respective society is enough for people to act in a “moral” fashion. There always have been, are and always will be immoral people, even those who hide by use of your religion.
Maybe you are one of those type of people who need someone or something over you threatening you with punishment for you to behave in a civilized manner, but that is not the case for most people.
And again, you are either confused or simply ignorant. Evolution does not seek to address morality, philosophy or any other subject than evolution. Your religion may seek to be the end-all and be-all to everything in life, but scientific disciplines do not have the same ambitions.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
No, rational and skeptical minds cannot accept simplistic, supernatural and superstitious explanations for the natural world. Sin is a religious concept and found in only the realm of superstition and not a rational concept.
Just for the record, - you can do this experiment in secret - no one has to know.
IT is not an experiment, but a prayer. Such is not the realm of science, but superstition.
IT is not an experiment, but a prayer. Such is not the realm of science, but superstition.
If I'm wrong, oh well (which I'm not). But if you're wrong, oh boy.
And again, the fear and threats are posted. All you and other superstitious hucksters have to operate on and run on is fear and threats.
If I’m conscious? The skeptic, because obviously the figure of Jesus is an apparition. If I’m asleep and dreaming, who cares. But when I wake up, I’ll be relived to know that such a “choice” is only of concern to the superstitious.
The liberal groups in this world seem to have an agenda that seeks to remove every mention of God from their world. They seem to stand for nearly everything I am opposed to. The majority of liberals believe in evolution. Now here is a direct accusation by association for you - Because of this fact, it makes it very difficult for us to accept your theory.
For example, I do not believe in abortion. I have a question for y'all:
Explain to me, with your evolution perspective, how can you justify the willful destruction of a living, growing, human being?
When I say it is murder, how can you define it as anything else?
And, if you are a pro-life evolutionist - then explain the facts or beliefs behind that stance. Then start explaining it to planned parenthood.
Again, evolution has nothing to do with abortion, but these types of beliefs are most associated with liberals, and most liberals believe in evolution. No insult is intended. My intent is to answer those who are asking why/how evolution is responsible for poor choices on the part of its proponents. I want evolutionists to understand how destructive the results of a belief in evolution can be.
So once again you retreat to guilt by association.
PS, I'm not a Liberal
Arthur
Just a quick FYI:
The Answers in Genesis Creation Museum and a discussion on the Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate is scheduled to be profiled on the “CBS News Sunday Morning” TV program this Sunday, October 23. (Check your local CBS-TV listings for the broadcast time in your area; also, visit the CBS website to verify the broadcast date since breaking news might preempt the program.)
It will be the “cover story” for the 90-minute broadcast, and thus should be aired during the first 15 minutes of this award-winning news program.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/...main13562.shtml
SoLoved
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
QUOTE
'Pseudoevolution' explanations rely too heavily on an unproven theory of macroevolution. 'Pseudoevolution' relies too heavily on the beelions/meelions years idea as well.
The fact that macro evolution occurred is shown in the fossil record, the only people who can deny that fact are those IGNORANT of the evidence or those who choose to be ignorant because of religious beliefs or willful stupidity.
The evidence that the Earth is old(4.5 million years) is so compelling that to deny it is the same as denying gravity or that the Earth orbits the sun.
These facts are not questioned by any real scientist who knows these disciplines.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 'Pseudoevolution' explanations rely too heavily on an unproven theory of macroevolution. 'Pseudoevolution' relies too heavily on the beelions/meelions years idea as well. |
The fact that macro evolution occurred is shown in the fossil record, the only people who can deny that fact are those IGNORANT of the evidence or those who choose to be ignorant because of religious beliefs or willful stupidity.
The evidence that the Earth is old(4.5 million years) is so compelling that to deny it is the same as denying gravity or that the Earth orbits the sun.
These facts are not questioned by any real scientist who knows these disciplines.
People are reasonable. You are a 'people' and I am a 'people' - we are reasonable. You should be able to see that our Universe was designed. We should be able to see some merit in your brand of science. I believe we do. We have admitted to microevolution, but we don't agree with macroevolution, naturalism, materialism, and secularism.
Then you are in error. Nothing we see in this universe requires a supernatural explanation.
QUOTE
The liberal groups in this world seem to have an agenda that seeks to remove every mention of God from their world. They seem to stand for nearly everything I am opposed to. The majority of liberals believe in evolution. Now here is a direct accusation by association for you - Because of this fact, it makes it very difficult for us to accept your theory.
As you inadvertently found in a previous post, an argument could be made that the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to be liberal.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The liberal groups in this world seem to have an agenda that seeks to remove every mention of God from their world. They seem to stand for nearly everything I am opposed to. The majority of liberals believe in evolution. Now here is a direct accusation by association for you - Because of this fact, it makes it very difficult for us to accept your theory. |
As you inadvertently found in a previous post, an argument could be made that the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to be liberal.
For example, I do not believe in abortion. I have a question for y'all:
Explain to me, with your evolution perspective, how can you justify the willful destruction of a living, growing, human being?
When I say it is murder, how can you define it as anything else?
And, if you are a pro-life evolutionist - then explain the facts or beliefs behind that stance. Then start explaining it to planned parenthood.
Again, evolution has nothing to do with abortion, but these types of beliefs are most associated with liberals, and most liberals believe in evolution. No insult is intended. My intent is to answer those who are asking why/how evolution is responsible for poor choices on the part of its proponents. I want evolutionists to understand how destructive the results of a belief in evolution can be.
And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
Must you constantly show how truly stupid you can be??? Alright, alright, we get it, nobody can be as stupid as you. Evolution isn't. Isn't what? Isn't responsible for poor choices. Belief in evolution just shows the acceptance of reality.
Your right, believing in the right of a woman to control her own body(as opposed to people like you doing so) is a sign of intelligence making it more likely for that person to be a liberal.
Why does everything you post have to be so insulting and offensive. is it like Turrets syndrome where everyone who thinks differently than you is wrong??? You are an evil little man, like a snail, you leave slime trails wherever you go, your moral bankruptcy is only matched by your intellectual deficits. You never learn, even though we have tried repeatedly to explain why you are wrong, you can't understand the simplest concepts, your hopelessly, terminally stupid.
Most Christians have no problem with evolution
Most Evolutionists believe in God
And then there's sostupid
WHERE'S THAT APOLOGY???
Grumpy
You people are crazy. The bible is only revealed truth to the people that believe in it. That book has been mistranslated and edited so many times over the past two millinium, I wonder what is left from the original edition.
Keep your books, keep your salvation and keep your fear to yourself.
Keep your books, keep your salvation and keep your fear to yourself.
QUOTE (soloved+)
The only reason I didn't believe in the existence of dinosaur's was because I had never seen one. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, kinda like the God thing, wouldn't you say.
You got fossils of God?
Arthur
You got fossils of God?
Arthur
QUOTE
And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced.
As it has been pointed out over and over SoLoved, purely selfish motives of wanting to live in a rational and mutually respective society is enough for people to act in a “moral” fashion. There always have been, are and always will be immoral people, even those who hide by use of your religion.
Maybe you are one of those type of people who need someone or something over you threatening you with punishment for you to behave in a civilized manner, but that is not the case for most people.
And again, you are either confused or simply ignorant. Evolution does not seek to address morality, philosophy or any other subject than evolution. Your religion may seek to be the end-all and be-all to everything in life, but scientific disciplines do not have the same ambitions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And what does evolution offer? Do you see anything in nature that can offer a reason for immoral people to become moral? If you believe so firmly in evolution and a non-existent or non-active god, can you offer any good thing to sway rational and skeptical minds? Naturalism, Materialism, Secularism. Me ism't convinced. |
As it has been pointed out over and over SoLoved, purely selfish motives of wanting to live in a rational and mutually respective society is enough for people to act in a “moral” fashion. There always have been, are and always will be immoral people, even those who hide by use of your religion.
Maybe you are one of those type of people who need someone or something over you threatening you with punishment for you to behave in a civilized manner, but that is not the case for most people.
And again, you are either confused or simply ignorant. Evolution does not seek to address morality, philosophy or any other subject than evolution. Your religion may seek to be the end-all and be-all to everything in life, but scientific disciplines do not have the same ambitions.
The argument goes like this:
Evolutionists say Christians can't deal with the idea that we're all animals.
Christians say Evolutionists can't deal with a God because of sin conviction.
No, rational and skeptical minds cannot accept simplistic, supernatural and superstitious explanations for the natural world. Sin is a religious concept and found in only the realm of superstition and not a rational concept.
QUOTE
Just for the record, - you can do this experiment in secret - no one has to know.
IT is not an experiment, but a prayer. Such is not the realm of science, but superstition.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Just for the record, - you can do this experiment in secret - no one has to know. |
IT is not an experiment, but a prayer. Such is not the realm of science, but superstition.
If I'm wrong, oh well (which I'm not). But if you're wrong, oh boy.
And again, the fear and threats are posted. All you and other superstitious hucksters have to operate on and run on is fear and threats.
QUOTE
Jesus Christ and a skeptic are standing at an intersection directing traffic. As you approach the intersection, Jesus informs you that the straight and narrow way leads Heaven and that all the other ways lead to hell. The skeptic tells you that none of the ways lead to Heaven. Which one should you believe?
If I’m conscious? The skeptic, because obviously the figure of Jesus is an apparition. If I’m asleep and dreaming, who cares. But when I wake up, I’ll be relived to know that such a “choice” is only of concern to the superstitious.
QUOTE (SoLoved+Oct 21 2005, 07:45 PM)
The liberal groups in this world seem to have an agenda that seeks to remove every mention of God from their world. They seem to stand for nearly everything I am opposed to. The majority of liberals believe in evolution. Now here is a direct accusation by association for you - Because of this fact, it makes it very difficult for us to accept your theory.
For example, I do not believe in abortion. I have a question for y'all:
Explain to me, with your evolution perspective, how can you justify the willful destruction of a living, growing, human being?
When I say it is murder, how can you define it as anything else?
And, if you are a pro-life evolutionist - then explain the facts or beliefs behind that stance. Then start explaining it to planned parenthood.
Again, evolution has nothing to do with abortion, but these types of beliefs are most associated with liberals, and most liberals believe in evolution. No insult is intended. My intent is to answer those who are asking why/how evolution is responsible for poor choices on the part of its proponents. I want evolutionists to understand how destructive the results of a belief in evolution can be.
So once again you retreat to guilt by association.
PS, I'm not a Liberal
Arthur
Jerry Duke its VERY nice to hear from you! How's it going with that preaching?
Pleaze keep dat message on de board - itz zarting to becum veri intewezting dat u believe in zuperzition und hizorikal klaimz abowt God - or zall i say Goa'uld from zargate
wink wink nod nod
Cheers Zapper
Pleaze keep dat message on de board - itz zarting to becum veri intewezting dat u believe in zuperzition und hizorikal klaimz abowt God - or zall i say Goa'uld from zargate
wink wink nod nod
Cheers Zapper
Afternoon folks,
Just a little side-track - I've heard the term 'liberal' used as a perjorative in several places, and never quite got what's so bad about them (if anything). Could someone explain it to me?
Anyway. Morals can come about without religion, in my opinion. I had a Catholic education from day one, and atheist parents. I tell you now, my parents' morals are far superior to the judgemental trash coming from my RE tutors. I'm not going to generalise to all Catholics (I know many truly good Catholics), but they used their Bible to put down anyone who disagreed with them. I once put this question to a tutor of mine: If, say, a Wiccan, followed all the 10 commandments apart from 'worship no other god' (or words to that effect), would they go to hell? The answer, predictably, was yes. I believe the word for this is ethnocentricism. My parents, on the other hand, taught me tolerance, acceptance, and kindness - far closer to the 'love thy neighbour' message present in the Bible.
I feel that some people get so hung up on small details of the Bible that they forget to be nice people and be tolerant. They're so concerned with the next life, they forget to live in this one.
Just my thoughts, feel free to ignore 'em.
Cheers
Kaeroll
Just a little side-track - I've heard the term 'liberal' used as a perjorative in several places, and never quite got what's so bad about them (if anything). Could someone explain it to me?
Anyway. Morals can come about without religion, in my opinion. I had a Catholic education from day one, and atheist parents. I tell you now, my parents' morals are far superior to the judgemental trash coming from my RE tutors. I'm not going to generalise to all Catholics (I know many truly good Catholics), but they used their Bible to put down anyone who disagreed with them. I once put this question to a tutor of mine: If, say, a Wiccan, followed all the 10 commandments apart from 'worship no other god' (or words to that effect), would they go to hell? The answer, predictably, was yes. I believe the word for this is ethnocentricism. My parents, on the other hand, taught me tolerance, acceptance, and kindness - far closer to the 'love thy neighbour' message present in the Bible.
I feel that some people get so hung up on small details of the Bible that they forget to be nice people and be tolerant. They're so concerned with the next life, they forget to live in this one.
Just my thoughts, feel free to ignore 'em.
Cheers
Kaeroll
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Oct 22 2005, 11:13 AM)
I feel that some people get so hung up on small details of the Bible that they forget to be nice people and be tolerant. They're so concerned with the next life, they forget to live in this one.
Amen!
Amen!
Just a quick FYI:The Answers in Genesis Creation Museum and a discussion on the Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate is scheduled to be profiled on the “CBS News Sunday Morning” TV program this Sunday, October 23. (Check your local CBS-TV listings for the broadcast time in your area; also, visit the CBS website to verify the broadcast date since breaking news might preempt the program.)
It will be the “cover story” for the 90-minute broadcast, and thus should be aired during the first 15 minutes of this award-winning news program.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/...main13562.shtml
SoLoved
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Oct 20 2005, 01:42 PM)
...All life on this planet fills or occupies a place where it can survive...
Why are there sheep?
Why are there sheep?
QUOTE (The Answer to the Atheist's Handbook by Richard Wurmbrand+ 1975, 1992, 2002)
... If there is no God, how is it that sheep exist?
The question was actually raised in an atheistic meeting in Russia. The lecturer had explained that life appeared spontaneously and developed through natural selection, and that in the cruel fight for survival only the animals that were stronger or quicker than their neighbors survived, while the weaker succumbed.
A believer asked, "But how is it that sheep survived, that they were not utterly destroyed by woves? The female wolf produces five or six offspring a year, the sheep only one. The ratio is 5:1 for the destroyer, which has sharp teeth, claws, strength, and swiftness in running. The sheep has absolutely no defense. How is it that there still are sheep? Today man protects them. The animal world existed before man appeared. Who protected the sheep at that time? You can explain many things without resorting to the hypothesis that God exists. But sheep with four legs could not exist without Him, any more than Christ's loving sheep, who have been defenseless against cruel persecutors since the beginning of the Church."
The answer this believer got was a few years in Soviet prisons.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. (Matthew 10:16)
How to be Saved
.
The question was actually raised in an atheistic meeting in Russia. The lecturer had explained that life appeared spontaneously and developed through natural selection, and that in the cruel fight for survival only the animals that were stronger or quicker than their neighbors survived, while the weaker succumbed.
A believer asked, "But how is it that sheep survived, that they were not utterly destroyed by woves? The female wolf produces five or six offspring a year, the sheep only one. The ratio is 5:1 for the destroyer, which has sharp teeth, claws, strength, and swiftness in running. The sheep has absolutely no defense. How is it that there still are sheep? Today man protects them. The animal world existed before man appeared. Who protected the sheep at that time? You can explain many things without resorting to the hypothesis that God exists. But sheep with four legs could not exist without Him, any more than Christ's loving sheep, who have been defenseless against cruel persecutors since the beginning of the Church."
The answer this believer got was a few years in Soviet prisons.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. (Matthew 10:16)
How to be Saved
.
I may be able to partially answer that, albeit with GCSE-level biology
If the wolves killed all their prey (e.g. sheep - only one of many sources of food), they would begin to starve and die out, allowing sheep to become more plentiful again, in a never-ending cycle (the name of which I forget). Just a thought, may be totally wrong... more relevant than that handy quote of yours, though.
Kaeroll
If the wolves killed all their prey (e.g. sheep - only one of many sources of food), they would begin to starve and die out, allowing sheep to become more plentiful again, in a never-ending cycle (the name of which I forget). Just a thought, may be totally wrong... more relevant than that handy quote of yours, though.
Kaeroll
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.