Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 269
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Meanwhile, back on the article (http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html) for a moment...

    (bold emphasis added my me)

    Here Mr. Trumble acknolwedges that there is (albeit remote) possiblity that some discovery could throw the "theory into doubt." Why then are challenges dismissed out of hand?
    Who said challenges are dismissed? Clearly, they are not. The problem with the attacks of the anti-evolutionists is that they are not challenges, but totally unfounded claims. In order to challenge something you need data. They don't have any, it's just a claim without any evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    To the extent that the theory is still "vulnerable" to the undiscovered, it seems reasonable that at least some observations could be viewed through a different theoretical framework. There may be a better story to tell.
    The story will get even better and more accurate over time, but I strongly doubt the future will show that plants came first and then sun, moon and stars.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #182  
    Originally Posted By: AlaskanDad at Today 12:53 PM
    Nobody's nice enough to get into heaven.


    No worries. Heaven doesn't exist. Nor hell, for that matter.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  3. #183  
    If that floats your boat, good for you. Enjoy!
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  4. #184  
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  5. #185  
    I even support your right to go to school and tell that to my kids!
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  6. #186  
    AKDad,

    No thanks. Because in the interest of fairness, you would be allowed to preach in my boys school.........wait, christ is already in the public schools.

    You keep your proselytizing to your church and I'll keep mine in the community atheist center.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    AKDad,
    .........wait, christ is already in the public schools.
    I like your use of "blue" icons for "b"ait.

    My point was that you can say anything you want to my kids in school. I'm not afraid of their exposure to non-biblical truths. I don't have a need to tell your kids one thing or defend my kids from another. Christ doesn't require fairness.

    We were just having a logical discussion on the literal interpretation of the Bible before you jumped in with your "apply thumb to eye" musings.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    We were just having a logical discussion on the literal interpretation of the Bible before you jumped in with your "apply thumb to eye" musings.
    Even though I fall on the other side of this debate, I admire your fight. Remember always from the creed:
    Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Meanwhile, back on the article (http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html) for a moment...

    (bold emphasis added my me)

    Here Mr. Trumble acknolwedges that there is (albeit remote) possiblity that some discovery could throw the "theory into doubt." Why then are challenges dismissed out of hand?

    I understand that the theory is "consistent with observed phenomena and yields valid predictions." I understand that as such it is "considered a viable explanation regardless of what remains to be discovered."

    To the extent that the theory is still "vulnerable" to the undiscovered, it seems reasonable that at least some observations could be viewed through a different theoretical framework. There may be a better story to tell.
    shopharim ....you may have missed my earlier post...

    Scientists, while still fallible as any other human beings, do not have a standard "dogma" - instead they use a standard operating paradigm. And sometimes there is a paradigm shift - and that does not come abruptly. Some of the critical paradigm shifts in science sometimes take years before it is accepted as the new paradigm. But this is an open process with much debate and new information coming to light, before there is general acceptance. And that is why the accusations of the creationists that the mainstream scientific community is "dogmatic" or close-minded is not true at all. The scientific community will challenge any new ideas, yes, but this resistance is misintrepreted as "dogma" instead of the fact that this is a routine method in science which forces any new ideas or theories to be truly robust and validatable.
    Every aspect of science is in one sense "vulnerable" to some new as yet "undiscovered" fact that overturns the current paradigm. But being vulnerable does not mean it is invalid. Of course if anyone can come up with a reasonable new theoretical framework that explains all the currently known facts, then it would be accepted. The key word being reasonable.

    If you are able to explain evolution by saying that all scientific evidence to date (this would encompass almost all the sciences - ranging from astronomy & physics to paleontology & genetics) was in fact "planted" by God - then this is not an illogical explanation. But many would not consider this a reasonable explanation.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  10. #190  
    my favorite quote about the "better story" is from the Life of Pi

    I can well imagine an atheist's last words: "White, white! L-L-Love! My God!"--and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try to explain the warm light bathing him by saying, "Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain" and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Even though I fall on the other side of this debate, I admire your fight. Remember always from the creed:
    Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor.
    Y'know, I kinda forgot there was someone here who knows that I'll put up a fight.

    However, I'd have to disagree with you on your description of this as a debate. In a debate, both parties usually try to prove to the other side that they are right and (but not necessarily) the other is wrong. In this case, the argument has gone like this:

    Others: The Bible cannot be taken literally and here's my example.
    Me: The example wasn't complete and here's my plain, unemotional logic.
    Others: Your logic is a stretch and outlandish!!! Here are different examples!!! You're still wrong!
    Me: I understand. Let me explain a different way of seeing your example.
    Others: What??? That makes no sense!!! Here's another example why you're wrong!
    Me: Here's is my plain, unemotional logic showing how the example was incorrect.
    Others: (insert Deaniac-like scream here ) I still can't understand you because you're so wrong!
    Me: That's OK. I understand... and the Bible is still right.
    Others: Quit trying to make the country go to your church and believe like you!!!! (OK, I exaggerated a little there.)

    This "debate" was me just showing how it was wrong to show my views are wrong using logic only and nothing regarding faith. I'm not necessarily right and others wrong. I'm only pointing out what is logically sound.

    I wanted to present to you a change from the stereotype: a free-thinking born again Christian who doesn't want to fight teaching evolution in school. I was met with stereotypical barrages about how others like me are a few meetings short of Nazi-ism.

    I enjoy this forum only as far as it can simulate a civilized conversation that neighbors might have on the porch. Anytime I read something that someone wouldn't dare say to me in person (because it's something impolite, not because of my size or previous "lifestyle") I better understand why this country can be so divided.

    You are my electronic neighbors. I would expect everyone to share ideas respectfully to learn more about others' opinions.

    Now....

    GAME ON!!!
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  12. #192  
    Keep fighter soldier.

    It's sad, but that's often the tactic used, shout you down and belittle you. Like I said earlier, I'm not religious. I guess being an Agnostic, I can be a bit more tolerant than an all-out atheist.

    Sua Sponte
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. #193  
    See, now there's a good example. You and I may disagree on this and many other matters. However, I know your mettle. I know you, my Ranger brother, would walk through fire for me and I for you.

    Neighborly civility. That's all it takes.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  14. #194  
    I dunno...here's what I thought was happening:

    Clp: The bible cannot be taken literally ...here's examples
    AD: No - here is how i see it ...(lot's of stuff about using a colon)
    Clp: question XYZ
    AD: answer to PQR
    Clp:
    AD: my logic makes sense to me
    everyone else:
    AD: I'm being persecuted for my beliefs!!

    Don't understand where logic entered this discussion at all - it was mostly semantics!

    by the way i don't mean to imply that either AD, clp or others are right are wrong - just a lot different view points which still haven't addressed the main issue about whether evolution should even be a topic of "debate".(If it is - then might as well put Newton's, Einstein's theories - oh heck, all of science, up for debate!)
    Last edited by chillig35; 06/30/2005 at 08:39 PM.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  15. #195  
    The beginning of this discussion was an insistence that the Bible was full of contradictions. Entered into evidence were two verses which appeared to mean different things; thus, being contradictory. I decided to do a little study of the meanings by re-posting the verses in the correct form (From the KJV. I guess this is where I put in some belief.). I then described how the author constructed the sentences to convey their meaning.

    I thought it best to explain my reasoning and use commonly agreed-upon rules for understanding the English language. I wanted to avoid the "Well, God said it, so it must be true." arguments.

    I am not being persecuted nor have I implied that. You can have your own ideas and it won't bother me. You can tell me that my ideas are wrong and it won't bother me. You can't tell me your arguments make sense when they don't follow established rules for logic. You can't tell me I'm not using logic when you don't understand the definition (supplied below for your reading pleasure).

    From www.webster.com

    Main Entry: log·ic
    Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
    1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

    Main Entry: se·man·tics
    Pronunciation: si-'man-tiks
    Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
    1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Nice has nothing to do with it. I'm only covered by accepting Jesus into my heart.
    What does this mean? (Serious question, not ironic or so). Does it mean I have to believe in Jesus, but how I act is not of central importance? Do I have to believe in Jesus being the Messiah AND act according to what Jesus said? Or is it good enough if I only act according to what Jesus said, but not care if he was the son of god etc.?

    I am asking this because I often get the impression that many highly Christian people (mainly the conservative Christians) are not necessarily acting the way Jesus said they should. E.g. the way they (conservatives?) deal with poverty in the world does not fit to Jesus teachings. Also, very few of them seem to love their enemies. I don't get the impression they even try, or at least try to understand their motives.

    Also, the "turn the other cheek"-principle does not seem to be followed by any Christian I know, certainly not by conservative/right US Christians. Do you think Jesus would have recommended joining the army or invading Iraq? Where is the link to Christianity there?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17.    #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What does this mean? (Serious question, not ironic or so). Does it mean I have to believe in Jesus, but how I act is not of central importance? Do I have to believe in Jesus being the Messiah AND act according to what Jesus said? Or is it good enough if I only act according to what Jesus said, but not care if he was the son of god etc.?
    The key promise of the Messiah is that those who believe in him are free from the "curse of the law." What is the curse of the law? Death. Not just physical death, but the more serious spiritual death that separates one relationally from God. What Jesus offers is a pardon for the sin (previously called lack-of-niceness).

    A question was raised in the book of Romans as to whether we should purposely sin so as to continuously experince the pardon. Paul emphatically rejected that notion. The encouragement through scripture is to live godly lives, maintaining sound minds, bodies and spirits. When we notice that we have failed in that pursuit, we acknowledge that and commit to avoiding the same. In so doing, the pardon is granted.

    A valid question that may be raised is "how do we know that a person is truly committed from doing it again?" The simple answer: we don't. In fact Jesus says that in the final day of judgement, there will be many who will point to the various good deeds they performed in His name, only to be told to depart for he never knew them. Likewise, He says there will be many who will be welcomed for their treatment of him, who will question when they extended such kindnesses. His response is that to that extent that they have done it to the least, they have done it to him.

    So, while we can spout doctrine, theology, etc. none of us is able to determine whether or not another is "in." We can only encourage one another to seek Him without reserve.

    This is especially pertinent when we consider your observation:
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am asking this because I often get the impression that many highly Christian people (mainly the conservative Christians) are not necessarily acting the way Jesus said they should. E.g. the way they (conservatives?) deal with poverty in the world does not fit to Jesus teachings. Also, very few of them seem to love their enemies. I don't get the impression they even try, or at least try to understand their motives.

    Also, the "turn the other cheek"-principle does not seem to be followed by any Christian I know, certainly not by conservative/right US Christians.
    That is a very broad brush that you are using.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Do you think Jesus would have recommended joining the army or invading Iraq?
    Don't know. I think he supports bringing liberty to the oppressed people. I think he recognized that there are times to fight and times to be vulnerable (the first time He sent his followers out, he told them to take nothing with them. Another time he told them to be sure they had their knives with them). Was there a righteous cause in Iraq? A case could be made. Was the US led response a righteous response? A case could be made. Is it possible that leaders had non-righteous motives? Yes, that is possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Where is the link to Christianity there?
    The invasion of Iraq, right, wrong, or indifferent, was not and is not a "Christian" battle. The Christian's warfare is not a physical one. There is no link to Christianity, accept that likely there are Christians involved in the conflict...not as "christians" but as soldiers (Iraqi or US), civilians, policy-makers, protesters....
  18.    #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am asking this because I often get the impression that many highly Christian people (mainly the conservative Christians) are not necessarily acting the way Jesus said they should. E.g. the way they (conservatives?) deal with poverty in the world does not fit to Jesus teachings. Also, very few of them seem to love their enemies. I don't get the impression they even try, or at least try to understand their motives.

    Also, the "turn the other cheek"-principle does not seem to be followed by any Christian I know, certainly not by conservative/right US Christians.
    Let me address these observations separately from the more broad response I just posted.

    Poverty
    First, and foremost, the United States of America is not the Church, or the Body of Christ!

    I can assure you there are Christians fighting poverty all over the globe. I am directly aware of various efforts. Christians are not the only religious people fightin poverty all over the globe. The fight against poverty is not limited to religious people. But US Christians are on the front lines along side their fellow man.

    Poverty has causes. It is not the luck of the draw. Granted, being born into poverty is circumstancial. Remaining in poverty, though, is not required.

    Many of the "impoverished" areas that we know about have become that way as a result of political action or inaction on the parts of those who have been in leadership. Even in modern history, we are aware of food and seed donations that rot away in warehouses, because those in authority know they can remain in authority by limiting the rations.

    Poverty can also result from misuse or abuse of the land. Lands needs a rest to remain fertile. If land is not given proper sabbatical, its productivity decreases even to the state of barrenness.

    Bono, of U2, is calling for debts to be forgiven. That sounds great. There is a principle of "Jubilee" that is of fitting use in these scenarios. However, eliminating will not end poverty. The people in leadership, must amend their behaviors.

    In many nations, one religious group is seeking to destroy followers of another. One ethnic group is seeking to destroy another. This must stop.

    Not to mention, many of US Christians are busy fighting poverty in our own country, as well as contributing towards that end in other nations.

    In some nations, "christian" contributions are refused. Efforts to assist are treated as imperialistic invasions.

    Are those who are most in the public eye true Christians? Don't know
    Are those who are busy making a difference seen in the public eye? Not usually
    Are there christians who, in public or private, fall short of Jesus' teachings and example? Yes. Most notably me (but I'm still striving to be all He intends me to be)

    Enemies
    There are enemies, then there are enemies. We love them all. Some of them, though, must be restrained.

    While we ought not respond in personal vengeance, we must respond in righteous indignation. When people sought to take and kill Jesus, He often ran away. When wicked vendors defiled the temple of God, Jesus wrecked the place (overturned tables, fashioned a whip and ran the people out).
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    AlaskanDad, in a previous post I wrote it seems stange to me that there is - according to you - only one literally true bible, the King James Version, because that would mean god excluded everybody who does not speak English from the "real" truth.

    You claimed there are translations of the KJV into every language and you presented the link above which is about the "Louis Second" bible. However, Louis Segond (1810-1885) was a Swiss thelogian who translated the Bible into French from the original texts in Hebrew and Greek. So contrary to your claim, this is not a translation of the King James Version into French.

    I still couldn't find a link to translations of the KJV into another language, let alone translations "from English into every language on the globe".
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The encouragement through scripture is to live godly lives, maintaining sound minds, bodies and spirits.
    Thanks for your posts. Maybe I am still in, then, though the question seems difficult to answer. The outcome seems somewhat unpredictable.

    We will see, or not see. I will continue to be nice, at any rate, god/gods or not.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions