1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    18 Jun '11 20:12
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    'soup', that has to be the best, utterly hilarious. I laugh at it every time.
    I guess you saw the implied sarcasm. My basic argument is this: Science can change its opinion and verifiable facts with newer knowledge. You are utterly unable to change your stance. I can change my stance when further knowledge might come in to convince us a god is about and actually did all the things you think it did. Until such a time, I'll stick with what is currently known. You, poor thing, are stuck in your own set of delusions and cannot even peek outside of them to consider other data. You peek only to find inconsistencies that will support your claims, which of course aren't even yours but thrashed over concepts that were not even original to christianity but plagiarised from earlier equally preposterous tales meant to control men and subjugate women. You are being controlled most excellently.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    18 Jun '11 20:33
    Originally posted by JS357
    Those aspects of our shared world that cannot be discovered within the domain of science are the domain of other aspects of human endeavor, such as the domain of religion. Science isn't going away, and religion isn't going away. If we do not keep the advocates of each domain from treating the other side as wrong wrong wrong, we may revert to intolerance, then persecution. Avoidance of this could begin with you.
    A voice of reason speaks out! BTW, even evolutionists know changes from one generation to another does not always lead to improvements, but evolution can go backwards also.

    In fact, now it is known genes are slippery little devils. It used to be thought gene movement was strictly vertical, that is to say, from one generation to the next with some random mutations thrown in.

    Now we know it's a bit different, genes can go sideways as well, bacteria can swap the suckers somehow making new arrangements that weren't thought possible before. But that is how science works, newer knowledge replaces the old.

    The thing about these religious objections, I find hard to fathom, since if you believe in all that, what is wrong with a god just setting things up at the beginning of the universe with the knowledge it was set up for life.

    Scientists can have no brief with that idea since it would be out of their realm. So what is the problem? You have to believe the tale exactly as it stands in your bible?
    You can't even entertain other thoughts?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    18 Jun '11 20:45
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I guess you saw the implied sarcasm. My basic argument is this: Science can change its opinion and verifiable facts with newer knowledge. You are utterly unable to change your stance. I can change my stance when further knowledge might come in to convince us a god is about and actually did all the things you think it did. Until such a time, I'll stick with ...[text shortened]... ous tales meant to control men and subjugate women. You are being controlled most excellently.
    Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. So there is nothing
    to control me. I have no fear of any one but God. And He loves me. I
    have no desire to sin, so I actually do as I please. No control there.
    There is no reason to change my mind, since I already believe in the truth.
    I am free to accept new truthful knowledge and I have the Holy Bible and
    the Holy Spirit to guide me. So I am a lucky son of a gun!
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    18 Jun '11 21:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. So there is nothing
    to control me. I have no fear of any one but God. And He loves me. I
    have no desire to sin, so I actually do as I please. No control there.
    There is no reason to change my mind, since I already believe in the truth.
    I am free to accept new truthful knowledge and I have the Holy Bible and
    the Holy Spirit to guide me. So I am a lucky son of a gun!
    Your father was a gun?
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Jun '11 21:06
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I guess you saw the implied sarcasm. My basic argument is this: Science can change its opinion and verifiable facts with newer knowledge. You are utterly unable to change your stance. I can change my stance when further knowledge might come in to convince us a god is about and actually did all the things you think it did. Until such a time, I'll stick with ...[text shortened]... ous tales meant to control men and subjugate women. You are being controlled most excellently.
    no this is untrue, we are constantly revising our teachings and thus our theology is constantly being refined as our understanding of scriptural principles gains a better understanding. You assertion therefore is without substance, what is more, we have not limited our search of truth to unintelligent agencies as have the materialists. Rav is correct, science is the new intolerant!
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    18 Jun '11 21:27
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Your father was a gun?
    I grew up in Texas. It is just a saying there. I don't know how it got
    started, but when someone felt really lucky, they would say,
    "I'M A LUCKY SON OF A GUN!"
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    18 Jun '11 21:57
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I think we would be better off doing our science with the knowledge
    and view that God put all the forces and everything in place to produce
    a location that was just right for His creation of life, which we can study
    to see how it works. Thus, we would obtain the truth in science without
    hostility toward God and spirituality. We should realize that there is
    more to consider in out study of science than just the material.
    I wonder how many of your opponents on this forum are doing science on the topic. I'm sure they are not doing science when they say religion is false.

    But there are many theists who both do science and worship God. Maybe not enough for you, but when would you be satisfied?

    There is hostility to religion, and that comes from people who think that science has the right to rule on those things that belong to the domain of religion, a right they do not have. But it also comes from people who think that religion is trying to rule on those things that belong to the domain of science, which is also a right it does not have.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    18 Jun '11 23:32
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I grew up in Texas. It is just a saying there. I don't know how it got
    started, but when someone felt really lucky, they would say,
    "I'M A LUCKY SON OF A GUN!"
    That was a joke...
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    18 Jun '11 23:42
    Originally posted by JS357
    I wonder how many of your opponents on this forum are doing science on the topic. I'm sure they are not doing science when they say religion is false.

    But there are many theists who both do science and worship God. Maybe not enough for you, but when would you be satisfied?

    There is hostility to religion, and that comes from people who think that science ...[text shortened]... e on those things that belong to the domain of science, which is also a right it does not have.
    It certainly thought it had that right, religious domination over every aspect of life, as in the middle ages, as it is now in Taliban territory. 500 years ago you could get beheaded for daring to say the Earth was not the center of the universe.

    I think we are in the tail end of that thinking even today.

    As shown by the virulent opposition to evolution, constantly saying evolution is the theory of how life got started and in the bible belt of the US trying to force religious views to be taught along evolution in science classes. Funny thing is they don't do the same thing to geometry or physics, they attack basically one science to the death. Vehemently attacking science has not died down since the middle ages, the aim has just gotten narrower. I am incredibly grateful for the loss of political power of the religious right, even as they attempt to take over the US just as the Taliban wants to take over Afghanistan and Pakistan. You better believe if the religious right took over completely our rights would go down the tube. You think this is just a debate in a fringe forum but it is a real fight to the death in middle America, no less dramatic than the fight over the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    Of course the religious right here won't stone your wife for adultery but it might be close.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    19 Jun '11 00:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse It certainly thought it had that right, religious domination over every aspect of life, as in the middle ages, as it is now in Taliban territory. 500 years ago you could get beheaded for daring to say the Earth was not the center of the universe.

    I think we are in the tail end of that thinking even today.

    As shown by the virulent opposition to evoluti ...[text shortened]...
    Of course the religious right here won't stone your wife for adultery but it might be close.
    P
    You equate the religious right in the USA with the Taliban in Pakistan and
    Afghanistan. As rwingett would say, "You are truly an idiot."
  11. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    19 Jun '11 05:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You equate the religious right in the USA with the Taliban in Pakistan and
    Afghanistan. As rwingett would say, "You are truly an idiot."
    You need to read about the fallacy of ad hominem. Calling someone an idiot is not an argument.
  12. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    38047
    19 Jun '11 06:47
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    no this is untrue, we are constantly revising our teachings and thus our theology is constantly being refined as our understanding of scriptural principles gains a better understanding. You assertion therefore is without substance, what is more, we have not limited our search of truth to unintelligent agencies as have the materialists. Rav is correct, science is the new intolerant!
    well my id is rvsakhadeo but thanks any way for quoting me !
    What I have actually posted is that some of the scientists are ridiculing those and intolerant with those who over many generations of humanity tried to pierce the veils which prevent us from seeing the truth and succeeded.These include prophets,saints,philosophers and most notably,whom we consider to be incarnations of God,such as Jesus,Lord Krishna,Buddha etc.Luckily many scientists also are theists and state humbly that their "knowledge"( the information gathered by following scientific process) is not complete.
  13. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    38047
    19 Jun '11 07:20
    Originally posted by JS357
    I wonder how many of your opponents on this forum are doing science on the topic. I'm sure they are not doing science when they say religion is false.

    But there are many theists who both do science and worship God. Maybe not enough for you, but when would you be satisfied?

    There is hostility to religion, and that comes from people who think that science ...[text shortened]... e on those things that belong to the domain of science, which is also a right it does not have.
    I was trained in one of the top Engineering colleges in India and have practiced as a structural engineer for the last 42 years !
    Yet I believe in God not by compulsion of birth as a Hindu but by a conscious choice nurtured over the years by reading,thinking and following the advice of my Guru.
    I believe that Science progressed because scientists kept an open mind and considered all sorts of possibilities.If scientists then start heaping ridicule on theists they are betraying their own discipline. Such intolerant"scientists" give science a bad name.The reaction of theists to such ridicule is understandable. But I request all theists to be patient with such scientists who claim to have solved all riddles facing humanity and try to persuade them by appealing to their sense of balance.
  14. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    19 Jun '11 07:59
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I grew up in Texas. It is just a saying there. I don't know how it got
    started, but when someone felt really lucky, they would say,
    "I'M A LUCKY SON OF A GUN!"
    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/327900.html
    😵
  15. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    The Flat Earth
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14988
    19 Jun '11 09:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You stated, "Evolution is a verifiable fact ."

    This is what biologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the forward to the 1971
    edition of Darwin's "Origin of Speicies" says

    "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
    peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it
    then a science or a faith? ...[text shortened]... ies, (Introduction) by Charles Darwin,
    J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, page 10.
    That particular quote is ubiquitous on creationist websites, and it's not really what it appears to be. The first part of the quote is actually Darwin's own words relating to the provability of the process of evolution during his lifetime. Matthews himself was, when he wrote this passage in the late sixties, close to the end of his career, a career throughout which the process of evolution, though almost universally accepted, could indeed have been said to be unprovable despite a vast weight of evidence. If you take the time to read the rest of the introduction, Matthews makes it quite clear that he regards the 'theory' as all but proven even in 1971. At that point in time moreover, DNA research was in it's infancy. The enormous amount of investigative work carried out in the last 40 years has put rather a different light on the process of evolution and, following the definition I posted above, the fact of it's existence is now quite beyond rational argument.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree