Page 82 of 89 FirstFirst ... 32727778798081828384858687 ... LastLast
Results 1,621 to 1,640 of 1780
  1.    #1621  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    FWIW, this is why I was wondering how serious you were. He did not say "I have a website", but rather "I have a website I follow".
    I completely missed that those words. I have ADHD and sometimes I do not see things that others have clearly written. Thanks for pointing out this instance. It's quite possible I've missed other things in the past. I'm trying to be serious, Please feel free to call me out any time that it looks like I'm not.

    thanks
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  2. #1622  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    This has been debated to death here a number of times. I believe the outcome was that neither side could convince the other side they were crazy.

    Not to "beat a dead horse" but doesn't this prove that evolutionism is a faith?
    Case in point, one of the predicessors, I think piltdown man was proven to be from an aged person who lived <100 years ago. The evolutionist reaction was to ignore it.
    IIIXE>Clie:N710C>N760C>NX60>Treo[600>650>700]>Centro>Pre+>Pre2&Touchpad 32GB
    webOS Themes: star-trek-universe star-trek-future Future Trek for Tpad

    My CV: http://visualcv.com/egadgetguy
  3.    #1623  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Sudoer, back in post 1590, you said you believe in the God of the bible.
    Yes, but I actually said this:
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I believe that the God who a purport exists gave us the means to know and understand Him in the Bible and the Church.
    I have a typographical error in that sentence so it's not entirely clear. "s/ a / I /" I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    This is a fairly loaded question, but Why? Care to describe the god you believe in (to the best of your abilities? Perhaps some qualities of Him)?
    Loaded but important also (so I want to give this some thought before answering).

    thanks
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. #1624  
    Quote Originally Posted by e-gadget-guy View Post
    Not to "beat a dead horse" but doesn't this prove that evolutionism is a faith?
    Case in point, one of the predicessors, I think piltdown man was proven to be from an aged person who lived <100 years ago. The evolutionist reaction was to ignore it.
    I think to believe anything is to have faith in its solidity. But no... evolutionism is not a faith because it has no attached belief system... it is an explanation for a single multi-threaded occurence.

    And proven is a pretty hefty word in science... it takes countless hours of testing to be allowed to call a hypothesis a theory... and then years of redundant work to make a theory into a law. I dont remember reading that he was unequivocally proven to be from less than 100 years ago... care to site that?

    "It is as hard to satirize well a man of distinguished vices, as to praise well a man of distinguished virtues." --Swift

    You cannot use disproof to prove...
    Last edited by bluewanders; 09/29/2010 at 07:22 PM. Reason: Grammatical Correction
  5. #1625  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    I think to belief anything is to have faith in its solidity. But no... evolutionism is not a faith because it has no attached belief system... it is an explanation for a single multi-threaded occurence.

    And proven is a pretty hefty word in science... it takes countless hours of testing to be allowed to call a hypothesis a theory... and then years of redundant work to make a theory into a law. I dont remember reading that he was unequivocally proven to be from less than 100 years ago... care to site that?

    "It is as hard to satirize well a man of distinguished vices, as to praise well a man of distinguished virtues." --Swift

    You cannot use disproof to prove...
    I am willing to find and cite the real facts, and I am sorry I don't have them handy.

    My point though is if someone follows a belief blindly, then that is his religion. I have seen evidence to support the fact that the evolution community continues to change theories [that they often call facts] until someone comes along and disproves them. Then, rather than converting to creationism, they instead hold onto the basic theory of evolution and redefine how they think it might have happened.

    I follow God not blindly, but because I feel that the universe screams of a creator. However, since I am not going to be convinced otherwise, that is my religion. The difference is, I don't have a problem with that.

    Also, you don't have to agree with me and I'm OK with that.
    IIIXE>Clie:N710C>N760C>NX60>Treo[600>650>700]>Centro>Pre+>Pre2&Touchpad 32GB
    webOS Themes: star-trek-universe star-trek-future Future Trek for Tpad

    My CV: http://visualcv.com/egadgetguy
  6. #1626  
    I have yet to state in this thread what I do believe. I came here to discuss.

    Try to think of it this way... your argument is that if you present facts to someone who believes in evolution that are contrary to their beliefs they should convert to creationism (which by the way is NOT the only other option) then their view is somehow less than yours even though perhaps for them the universe might scream the lack of a creator? What a persons gut tells them is something personal to them... what about all the facts they choose to present to you that doesnt sway you to evolutionism, is your view somehow less than theirs because of it?

    The idea here, is that there is no right or wrong. Belief doesnt "believe" in a right or wrong, only personal truth... what feels true to each individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by e-gadget-guy View Post
    I am willing to find and cite the real facts, and I am sorry I don't have them handy.

    My point though is if someone follows a belief blindly, then that is his religion. I have seen evidence to support the fact that the evolution community continues to change theories [that they often call facts] until someone comes along and disproves them. Then, rather than converting to creationism, they instead hold onto the basic theory of evolution and redefine how they think it might have happened.

    I follow God not blindly, but because I feel that the universe screams of a creator. However, since I am not going to be convinced otherwise, that is my religion. The difference is, I don't have a problem with that.

    Also, you don't have to agree with me and I'm OK with that.
  7. #1627  
    I'm not saying they are less somehow. I'm saying if a person believes something unswayingly, then that is his religion. That is in fact the definition of religion.

    I admin to being religious and I wish other people would admit it too. Scientific method is, if you have a theory, you test it, if the test disproves the theory, you change the theory. But the test has to be valid. You can't say "there's no god because I've never seen him." [not accusing here]
    The problem is that none of us were there to witness it. so we all have to believe something, or disbelieve it...

    So, to lighten this up, because as I've said, each has to make his peace with himself

    Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist who had insomnia? He was kept awake nights wondering if there really is a Dog.
    IIIXE>Clie:N710C>N760C>NX60>Treo[600>650>700]>Centro>Pre+>Pre2&Touchpad 32GB
    webOS Themes: star-trek-universe star-trek-future Future Trek for Tpad

    My CV: http://visualcv.com/egadgetguy
  8.    #1628  
    Quote Originally Posted by e-gadget-guy View Post
    Not to "beat a dead horse" but doesn't this prove that evolutionism is a faith?
    Case in point, one of the predicessors, I think piltdown man was proven to be from an aged person who lived <100 years ago. The evolutionist reaction was to ignore it.
    The information Riley tried to convery in his ridiculously artistic flowchart has been debunked in this thread. Please feel free to read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    I think to believe anything is to have faith in its solidity. But no... evolutionism is not a faith because it has no attached belief system...
    I more or less agree. Evolution is a theory (with holes) but very strong nonetheless. I'm a Christian who does not discount evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    it is an explanation for a single multi-threaded occurence.
    Can you explain what you mean here?
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9. #1629  
    Quote Originally Posted by e-gadget-guy View Post
    You can't say "there's no god because I've never seen him." [not accusing here]
    I'd disagree with that. It would be equally absurd for someone to claim "You can't say 'there is no invisible pink unicorn because I've never seen him.'" or "You can't say 'there is no leprechauns because I've never seen him.'"

    If someone came up to you and said "Unicorns are real.", would the default be to say "I'd like to see some evidence for that" or "Oh, then they must be real."?

    When it comes to evolution by natural selection: Evolution happens, and is reproducible in the lab. It can be regarded as a fact. The theory that Darwin proposed is the means, that is to say Natural Selection. That is also the best model to explain the diversity of life on Earth. An example of non-natural selection would be the humans breeding of dogs to make the variations we see today. It is a very complex system, and there is more specifics and details discovered all the time. So, if someone came up to me and said "Natural Selection is the best possible way to explain evolution and the diversity of life on Earth, here is the evidence" I'd accept that as our current understanding of how things work.

    Also, I don't think that calling a scientific theory a religion is productive, accurate, or helpful to the topic.

    To address the whole "positive claim" bit I've seen this discussed before in this thread: making a claim that there is a god is a positive assertion. As an atheist, it is the default position to assume there is no god. Much like I assume there are no real unicorns, there is no flying spaghetti monster, and there are no leprechauns.

    Apologies, this post seemed to have wondered a bit. Though, all were points I've wanted to make in my past viewings of this thread long ago.

    Making an extraordinary claim of "There is a God" requires extraordinary evidence.
    Last edited by jmquinn; 09/29/2010 at 08:56 PM. Reason: punctuation, then to correct for weird mis-quote
  10.    #1630  
    Quote Originally Posted by e-gadget-guy View Post
    I am willing to find and cite the real facts, and I am sorry I don't have them handy.
    For the sake of keeping the thread from devolving into discussion and argument based solely on emotion, we should all try and be sure we can back up what we say here. I know discussion does not always work that way but it's a rule that I think will help others to follow and understand any points you make.

    Quote Originally Posted by e-gadget-guy View Post
    My point though is if someone follows a belief blindly, then that is his religion.
    That's like saying all insects are bugs. Yes, a bug is an insect, but the converse is not always true. The same exists for your definition of religion.

    A better definition is:
    a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
    .

    Faith does not have to be "blind" (and often is not).

    Quote Originally Posted by e-gadget-guy View Post
    I'm not saying they are less somehow. I'm saying if a person believes something unswayingly, then that is his religion. That is in fact the definition of religion.
    Muhammed wrote beliefs and principles that were later abrogated, so in some religions, beliefs can change. Is Islam not a religion? I think your definition goes too far.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  11. #1631  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    The information Riley tried to convery in his ridiculously artistic flowchart has been debunked in this thread. Please feel free to read it.


    I more or less agree. Evolution is a theory (with holes) but very strong nonetheless. I'm a Christian who does not discount evolution.


    Can you explain what you mean here?
    I would agree that evolution certainly has its holes... but as we learn more and more about the genome and the cellular mechanism some of those holes get filled in... some of the leaps one might see are simply that... a leap. You have to remember there are a lot of people who believe a lot of different things. For instance... there are some die-hard believers in science that try to explain the immaculate birth as an instance of spontaneous recombination... in which it has been shown tumors can have organs in them such as hair and teeth, eyes tongues etc... it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a massive spontaneous recombination of Marys DNA could lead to a fully developed tumor in the form of Jesus Christ... likely? Hardly. I wouldn't buy into that if it paid me... but its still within the realm.

    Spontaneous recombination CAN account for serious leaps in genetic improvement though. Also... its been shown that evolutionary leaps in species can happen as quickly as a couple generations based on need. There was a famous case some years back in england. I cant cite it at the moment as I am mobile... however a species of moth lost its habitat, it lived in one particular forest that had fallen victim to development. When it was relocated, it was seen within a few generations time a shift in the offspring produced to change their coloration for better camouflage in the new environment. This is a change that was made in short order on the genetic level for that entire species.

    What I meant by single multi-threaded occurrence is just this... evolution itself is more of a global theorem... meaning it doesn't try to explain every case, it attempts to explain a patter of behavior. Multi-threaded because it touches lots of different species and time periods, and has lots of different things going on, but it is still a single overall idea.
  12.    #1632  
    @jmquinn, The quote you made in post #1629 does not look like something I would have said. (When I clicked back to it, I also didn't see those words.) If someone else said this, can you please change the quotation to reflect the correct author?
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  13.    #1633  
    I really like the analogy you made here:
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    If someone came up to you and said "Unicorns are real.", would the default be to say "I'd like to see some evidence for that" or "Oh, then they must be real."?
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  14. #1634  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    @jmquinn, The quote you made in post #1629 does not look like something I would have said. (When I clicked back to it, I also didn't see those words.) If someone else said this, can you please change the quotation to reflect the correct author?
    That's weird, I believe I clicked the "quote" button at the bottom of e-gadget-guy's post, he was the one who said it. Sorry, sudoer!

    The quote was from post 1627 of this thread.
    for whatever reason, the link doesn't work after edit; Here's my last attempt:
    http://forums.precentral.net/showthr...=1#post2686055
    Last edited by jmquinn; 09/29/2010 at 09:01 PM. Reason: ugh, there is only one sudoer, so making my post reflect it
  15.    #1635  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Also, I don't think that calling a scientific theory a religion is productive, accurate, or helpful to the topic.
    I agree. In order to have a productive discussion, we need to be firm on our points while also being careful not to needlessly derail any current discussion.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16.    #1636  
    I need to point out a probable error in part of what you just said:

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    I would agree that evolution certainly has its holes... but as we learn more and more about the genome and the cellular mechanism some of those holes get filled in... some of the leaps one might see are simply that... a leap. You have to remember there are a lot of people who believe a lot of different things. For instance... there are some die-hard believers in science that try to explain the immaculate birth as an instance of spontaneous recombination...
    I'm not sure what you meant by "immaculate birth". When "immaculate" is mentioned in the context of Mary, it usually means she was "without sin". I think you may have been thinking of the "immaculate conception". Mary was saved by the grace of God before she was conceived. The vessel in which Jesus came to Earth needed to be immaculate. Jesus was (is) God, so we calling Him immaculate might be pretentious (or redundant) on our part (like He could be anything else).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  17. #1637  
    The bible reads that a representative of God (an angel) came down down and planted in Mary the seed of God correct? I am not a Christian but Ive read the book a few times.

    The idea goes... he was concieved through no act of man... at least, that is one interpretation that some people believe. Thus an opposing idea that perhaps he was a product of spontaneous recombination.

    Correct me if im wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I need to point out a probable error in part of what you just said:



    I'm not sure what you meant by "immaculate birth". When "immaculate" is mentioned in the context of Mary, it usually means she was "without sin". I think you may have been thinking of the "immaculate conception". Mary was saved by the grace of God before she was conceived. The vessel in which Jesus came to Earth needed to be immaculate. Jesus was (is) God, so we calling Him immaculate might be pretentious (or redundant) on our part (like He could be anything else).
  18.    #1638  
    I can understand and agree with your first paragraph below but I will have to disagree with your closing paragraph:

    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    Try to think of it this way... your argument is that if you present facts to someone who believes in evolution that are contrary to their beliefs they should convert to creationism (which by the way is NOT the only other option) then their view is somehow less than yours even though perhaps for them the universe might scream the lack of a creator? What a persons gut tells them is something personal to them... what about all the facts they choose to present to you that doesnt sway you to evolutionism, is your view somehow less than theirs because of it?

    The idea here, is that there is no right or wrong. Belief doesnt "believe" in a right or wrong, only personal truth... what feels true to each individual.
    What you are saying implies that truth is relative. I believe truth must be absolute (or it is not really "truth", just a perception).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  19.    #1639  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    Correct me if im wrong.
    I made no claim about what you said other than I believed your use of the term "immaculate birth" seemed strange. My point was that the term "immaculate" was used to refer to the conception of Mary, not Jesus. (Mary was conceived by two humans just like the rest of us except that she was saved from original sin before she was conceived.

    It looks like I need to comment on the rest of your post in order to avoid confusion. I pretty much agreed with the concepts you were otherwise trying to convey. You were referring to Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. The angel Gabriel only made the announcement of what you happen. Miracles are things that cannot be explained by science. If the Bible is to be true, then the recombinant DNA explanation is likely false. My point is that Jesus' DNA needs to be from more than just Mary.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #1640  
    Ah... see I could never agree that truth is not relative to perception.

    A rather simplistic case for my point would be color blindness. What is blue to you? How is it to say that blue to someone else isnt entirely different? If a person who is colorblind grows up to never be taught that blue exists, then the reality of his existence is that there are only 2 primary colors... unless instinctively he would intuit there must be more.

    To further that... what of a man, who was raised from birth to believe in a certain religion; and due to location, poverty and such was never once introduced to your Christianity... the bible says a child is faultless and without sin, but what of the man that child becomes if he was never once taught your truth? Never once asked to be saved and lived a life as prescribed by his own religion?

    Or another... let us say you meet a woman... you fall in love with this woman, dating her and such over a period of time... and then one day you discover she is married and still with her husband. The truth as you knew... or the truth as it was... what if she had left and you had never found out? Have you commited the sin of coveting your neighbors wife? Even though, the truth as you knew it was the she was single?

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I can understand and agree with your first paragraph below but I will have to disagree with your closing paragraph:


    What you are saying implies that truth is relative. I believe truth must be absolute (or it is not really "truth", just a perception).

Posting Permissions