Originally posted by KellyJayI'm sorry you are having a bad time here. I can understand how pressured one can feel when their position is constantly under attack.
I think you do that too, but I do not call you a liar for it, because
you are not lying! You are speaking as you believe reality is through
the filter “your world view” that you use to look at things. Your views
look at things certain way, they block other ways out, it isn't a lie,
but does the same thing with respect to obscuring things. With you
howe ...[text shortened]... write this place off as a bad memory, because
that is certainly what it is now for me.
Kelly
However, when I claim something (Big Bang, Evolution, etc), I have the backing of empirical evidence. When a Biblical literalist claims something, it often contradicts the evidence (6000 year old earth, for example).
You seem to be getting annoyed, not because of the arguements themselves, but rather, I believe, because you've been indoctrinated by the church so long you lack the mental flexibility to simply change your mind and admit a few realities. I can understand it's scary for you to fundamentally change your worldview, and to throw out things that you once felt were so sure, but believe me, you're openning yourself up to a reality so much better than the one you currently inhabit. Gambatte!
Originally posted by whodeyI think most scientists (well, all, I should think) realise that Darwin was wrong on a substantial amount of things. However, he got the mechanism, and was able to feel out the basic shape of what was happenning. That is worthy of respect.
Well that was your interpretation from what you know about science and perhaps it was Darwins as well, however, it is unfortunate that he does not reason this out using science as you did.
It is unfortunate because most will not really care what you or I think regarding such issues, however, with Darwin this is not the case. There is a huge following in regards to his writings and, as a result, people sware by what he thought and said.
However, to jump to Darwin's defense, and his critique, Darwin didn't know about the genetic basis of heredity. I feel, as a result, he believed the unit of selection to be the individual, while it truely is the gene (which is the point of neo-Darwinian theory). Darwin's point seems a little garbled occassionally, like in this case, because if the unit of selection were the individual, he would probably be right, but because the unit of selectio is the gene it can lead to some counter intuitive behaviours developing.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhen you claim (big bang) you paint the universe we see it today
I'm sorry you are having a bad time here. I can understand how pressured one can feel when their position is constantly under attack.
However, when I claim something (Big Bang, Evolution, etc), I have the backing of empirical evidence. When a Biblical literalist claims something, it often contradicts the evidence (6000 year old earth, for example). ...[text shortened]... nning yourself up to a reality so much better than the one you currently inhabit. Gambatte!
to suggest things about it, you then project your views about the
universe and tell me about the past. It is your views of the universe
and the meaning or truth you assign to it that I typically have issue
with. I say it over and over that I get told things here, “We see this,
so it means that”, and my reply runs along the vein, “no we see this,
it only means we see this, it may not be that it means that”.
You can go back years here and read my posts on evolution and
basically they are the same, I do not reject small changes today, and
we can call that evolution too, and we would agree. Where we part
company is when you project your views about the meaning of the
small changes into the past again and tell me what that means
All of your interpretations on the way things are the normal points
of discussion, not the universe itself which is our only evidence. I
would ask you your opinion on the modern car and design, since I was
quite surprise at other people’s answers. Can you tell a car is
designed just by looking at a car or do you need bring in factories,
engineers, and the blue prints of a car to know it was designed; can
you see design with nothing but a car to look at?
I also do not typically mind having to defend my views, if they were
not worth defending I would not bring them up, what I dislike is the
way things get personal here for no good reason! Each of us here has
a life, it is difficult to carry on several conversations at once in thread
in addition to having others going on multiple other threads and keep
everything straight and not lose track of who said what when or simply
forget something. I do wish we could show each other a little more
respect, I am to the point now where it seems every time I turn around
I’m seeing an attack on my integrity and intelligence and it just isn’t
worth the time. I don’t need the movie expelled to grasp the way
people are treated for disagreeing with certain beliefs about the past.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionNo, our views were not ever similar! You never had a real relationship
You can deny it if you wish, but you're not fooling anybody KJ. I've been around here too long and read too many of your posts not to recognize your religious view, and you know that mine were once very similar.
My point still stands. You excuse blatant, deliberate misrepresentations so long as they validate your feelings.
with Jesus Christ, I'm not sure what you were apart of, but at best it
was you always looking at it, thinking because of your tempoary
agreement of others on points they held as important you thought you
had it. Unless you can tell me you walked away from a relationship
with Jesus Christ, you and I never shared anything.
Kelly
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI asked you can you see design in a car, it is yes or no.
What are your criteria for being able to tell if something is designed or not?
Is it merely that things are ordered?
You could probably tell a car is designed because it is completely inorganic and that there is that amount of order in the parts there. It has no possibility of exaptation or developing organically.
That's the primary difference ...[text shortened]... t in inorganics.
What would your criteria be for something to be guaranteed to be designed?
My views on it at the moment are mine, if I'm going to accept any
statement from you about not seeing design in the universe I at
least have to know if you have a clue what to look for. If you cannot
see design than yes, I can begin to teach you if that is what you want.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly demanding a "yes or no" answer. How ironic. 😉
I asked you can you see design in a car, it is yes or no.
My views on it at the moment are mine, if I'm going to accept any
statement from you about not seeing design in the universe I at
least have to know if you have a clue what to look for. If you cannot
see design than yes, I can begin to teach you if that is what you want.
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't know why you think that is ironic, if the declaration is that
Kelly demanding a "yes or no" answer. How ironic. 😉
there is no evidence for design in the universe coupled with no
one can see design that should tell you something. The statement
about no evidence isn't very accurate, the only accurate thing would
be we cannot see it even if it right in front of us, all else is just
statement of belief, because you have nothing to base it on outside
of you desire to not see it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're going to teach me about how to see design? THEN DO IT!
I asked you can you see design in a car, it is yes or no.
My views on it at the moment are mine, if I'm going to accept any
statement from you about not seeing design in the universe I at
least have to know if you have a clue what to look for. If you cannot
see design than yes, I can begin to teach you if that is what you want.
Kelly
That's exactly what I was asking you - what criteria do you see as being necessary for design?
I actually answered your yes or no question in my post. I have already told you what I would look for in the case of a car in that very post you responded to.
I'm asking you to share your views just like you are asking me to share mine and I have. That's called a conversation.
If this is just you asking me questions only then it's not a conversation, it's an interview.
Quid pro quo Clarice. Quid pro quo!
Originally posted by KellyJayI absolutely walked away from that relationship. There will always be the "if you walked away from Christ then you never knew him" argument. That's an impossible argument to escape. I would hope you wouldn't resort to that but I've heard it from many people, although interestingly never from Christians who actually knew me back then.
No, our views were not ever similar! You never had a real relationship
with Jesus Christ, I'm not sure what you were apart of, but at best it
was you always looking at it, thinking because of your tempoary
agreement of others on points they held as important you thought you
had it. Unless you can tell me you walked away from a relationship
with Jesus Christ, you and I never shared anything.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionRestating your position doesn't add to you argument, I find it odd that
You can deny it if you wish, but you're not fooling anybody KJ. I've been around here too long and read too many of your posts not to recognize your religious view, and you know that mine were once very similar.
My point still stands. You excuse blatant, deliberate misrepresentations so long as they validate your feelings.
over and over in past years people would scream bloody murder if
someone would bring up God in the general discussion area, yet in
the science area you have no problems talking about my beliefs about
God when I do not bring them up first, and I do not see the same level
of out cry here as I still do there.
You are full of it telerion, you and I have not shared the same
experiences with respect to Jesus Christ unless you want to admit
to me that you did have a real relationship with Jesus Christ and
walked away from Him, so you do not have anything to draw on there
to make comparisons on how you understand my position. You may
think you know a great deal, I imagine you honestly do believe you
know a great deal more about me and everyone else than you really
do, but that will not stop you from making such claims.
Kelly
Originally posted by PsychoPawn"Quid pro quo Clarice. Quid pro quo!"
You're going to teach me about how to see design? THEN DO IT!
That's exactly what I was asking you - what criteria do you see as being necessary for design?
I actually answered your yes or no question in my post. I have already told you what I would look for in the case of a car in that very post you responded to.
I'm asking you to share your ...[text shortened]... y then it's not a conversation, it's an interview.
Quid pro quo Clarice. Quid pro quo!
Okay FRED I'll get you something soon. 🙂
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI would have to agree with Kelly in that everytime you attack Christians you do so using the Old Testamemt. It seems odd that you never have anything ill to say about Christ, but yet you say you walked away from him? I personally don't see how anyone could read what was written about him and about what he said and not love him. It reminds me of a exerpt in the movie when Ben asks Dawkins if it was so aweful letting people believe that the God they served was a loving God? Why did he persist on making them believe otherwise?
I absolutely walked away from that relationship. There will always be the "if you walked away from Christ then you never knew him" argument. That's an impossible argument to escape. I would hope you wouldn't resort to that but I've heard it from many people, although interestingly never from Christians who actually knew me back then.
As for myself, Christ has made me a much better person than I was before I knew him. In fact, I can't ever imagine walking away from him because of it. I suppose you did not have the same experience as Kelly or I.
Originally posted by whodeyThere was a time when I couldn't imagine it either. How hard is it to believe that human could reject God? After all, don't you both believe that humans have already rejected once?
I would have to agree with Kelly in that everytime you attack Christians you do so using the Old Testamemt. It seems odd that you never have anything ill to say about Christ, but yet you say you walked away from him? I personally don't see how anyone could read what was written about him and about what he said and not love him. It reminds me of a exerpt in ...[text shortened]... ng away from him because of it. I suppose you did not have the same experience as Kelly or I.
BTW I use the Old Testament because it's the easiest method. I could give the "other side," as KJ calls it, of the NT too. The real question would be if I was dishonestly distorting the text or not.
Originally posted by telerionWell as Kelly points out, this is not the spirituality forum. As a matter of fact, I have not posted there in a while because I got tired of people screaming, "Your God eats babies!" It just kinda gets old after a while. I tried explaining my positions over and over again and I guess I just got tired of it.
There was a time when I couldn't imagine it either. How hard is it to believe that human could reject God? After all, don't you both believe that humans have already rejected once?
BTW I use the Old Testament because it's the easiest method. I could give the "other side," as KJ calls it, of the NT too. The real question would be if I was dishonestly distorting the text or not.
I will now ask you the same question Ben asked Dawkins which is, why not let those of faith believe that their God is a God of love?