Originally posted by amannionI don't think there was a worldwide flood. I thought you were defending the argument that there was.
I'll explain where the extra water comes from as soon as you explain for me the evidence of a worldwide flood.
And don't give me this 'the bible tells me so' crap.
Give me some actual evidence.
Originally posted by TheSkipperI am not fighting for the acceptance of creation, what I think is
Well, if in order to understand the 'evidence' for the creation myth(s) you need to be a Christian (or, at least some sort of God botherer) then why are you fighting with all these atheists about it?
Perhaps your time (and all creation myth apologists time) would be better spent proselytizing to scientists so they can see/understand all the secret ev ...[text shortened]... could not possibly understand? I get a definite "render unto Caesar..." vibe from this.
very important is that the evolutionist have a major issue with
reality, and they are filling it with their faith and are denying it
is faith and calling their belief facts or science to dress it up as
something it is not.
Anyone and everyone is welcome to believe what they will, each
of us will stand or fall according to our walk with Christ, not on
how old we think the universe is or if evolution is correct or not;
however, evolution and Big Bang believers are pushing their
faith as facts, and if that would stop I would have no issues with
them.
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell said.
Sorry to divert the conversation to this thread from a few days ago, but it's just too tempting to pass up.
Scott brings up a great point that should be addressed. He recognizes that God has a policy--- in varying degrees--- of using 'trickery' to trip others up. While I can't concede that 'trickery' accurately describes the finesse used by God, I hav ...[text shortened]... 'trickery' of God is always against the arrogant, laying bare their schemes and agendas.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI have faith, so does the evolutionist, but I acknowledge mine.
Just hang on there. I have absolutely no objection to people believing what ever they want. My objection is to the politicisation of science by the Fundies where they try to dress up their metaphysics as science and even try to insist that it is taught along side mainstream science as part of the cirriculum. Each mindset should stick to what it does bes ...[text shortened]... should live in the world as humans together (and who we're allowed to stone as the evil ones)😉
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don’t know Kelly. I have known a few scientists in my day and they seem to take their work very seriously. They tend; in fact, to be very serious people in general and usually have a pretty serious intellect to go with it. My sister in law, for instance, is a scientist. She attends Church every Sunday and quite frankly it would be much easier for her to dismiss the TOE but the evidence prevents her from doing so. This is a person who recognizes faith when she sees it, I know because she has a great deal of it in her walk with Christ. I think dismissing the scientific discoveries made regarding the TOE, as you seem to, constitutes a pretty major issue with reality on your part. Is it a perfect theory? I highly doubt it, but throwing the whole thing out because science can’t explain it perfectly from beginning to end seems wrong.
I am not fighting for the acceptance of creation, what I think is
very important is that the evolutionist have a major issue with
reality, and they are filling it with their faith and are denying it
is faith and calling their belief facts or science to dress it up as
something it is not.
Anyone and everyone is welcome to believe what they will, each ...[text shortened]... pushing their
faith as facts, and if that would stop I would have no issues with
them.
Kelly
The “scientist” who describes the TOE as fact only demonstrates a lack of understanding about the difference between a fact and a scientific theory. I really can’t stress that enough. It is a THEORY, and it is easy to remember it is a theory because the word THEORY *is in the name*.
Come to think of it, I know (and know of) many Christians who seem hell bent on presenting their faith as fact. So much so that they attempt to legislate (or encourage legislators) to make laws reflecting their faith in this or that. I ask you Kelly, are you as critical of them as you are scientists? Why do I not see you rallying against the “under God” portion of the Pledge of Allegiance? Is this not an example of Christians portraying their faith as fact and subsequently attempting to force the entire country to go along with it?
Let’s face it, your field of expertise probably puts you in a much better position to criticize Christian fundamentalism than scientific theory, wouldn’t you say? Would you give much credence to the theological ideas of an untrained want to-be theologian? If not, why do you expect scientists to pay attention to an untrained want to-be evolutionary expert? (I’m only assuming you are untrained…if not; mea culpa).
I’m not sure your line of reasoning here is terribly beneficial for a man in your position. Clearly, even you must admit that there is at least *some* evidence supporting the TOE. However, *all* evidence for God requires some degree of faith. People in glass houses, my friend…people in glass houses.
TheSkipper
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperFar be it from me to answer for KJ, but...
I don’t know Kelly. I have known a few scientists in my day and they seem to take their work very seriously. They tend; in fact, to be very serious people in general and usually have a pretty serious intellect to go with it. My sister in law, for instance, is a scientist. She attends Church every Sunday and quite frankly it would be much easier for he ...[text shortened]... s some degree of faith. People in glass houses, my friend…people in glass houses.
TheSkipper
Your post presupposes that only the totally informed should have an opinion on any matter. If only the totally informed were to have opinions, these forums would be reduced to about a page and a half for all subject matters.
Additionally, one need not know everything relative to a field in order to detect its logic gaps. The many gaps evident within the theory of evolution demand a suspension of belief. The objective observer need not know the whole to reveal the parts; the missing parts leave the formula in disarray.
Even when the formula is complete (which the TOE unequivocally is not), if it depends upon logic gaps, it does not require a total understanding of the entire formula in order to point out the gaps themselves.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy post does not suggest that only the totally informed should have opinions. I simply questioned how much weight the trained should give to the opinions of the untrained.
Far be it from me to answer for KJ, but...
Your post presupposes that only the totally informed should have an opinion on any matter. If only the totally informed were to have opinions, these forums would be reduced to about a page and a half for all subject matters.
Additionally, one need not know everything relative to a field in order to detect i ...[text shortened]... t require a total understanding of the entire formula in order to point out the gaps themselves.
As I, and many others, have said before; there are gaps in the TOE, which is why it is a THEORY.
Besides, my point is not about the relative strength of the theory but the hypocrisy involved in claiming you don't want faith and fact to be confused and then support the exact opposite if it happens to agree with your world view.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperWhile you may have said it before, this position is far from the consenus of the many who inexplicably post here. According to most of the 'experts' here, the use of the word 'theory' in its title is merely a sentimental designation.
My post does not suggest that only the totally informed should have opinions. I simply questioned how much weight the trained should give to the opinions of the untrained.
As I, and many others, have said before; there are gaps in the TOE, which is why it is a THEORY.
Besides, my point is not about the relative strength of the theory but the hypo ...[text shortened]... and then support the exact opposite if it happens to agree with your world view.
TheSkipper
It remains that any belief in anything is nothing more than faith. Evolutionists base their faith on the 'facts' of evolution; Christians base their faith on the 'facts' of the Bible.
Originally posted by TheSkipperI think the error that Kelly makes is to try to run with ideas taken from the IDers. Questioning evolution or any other theory is good but re-gurgitating the same hackneyed ideas over and over has more to do with politics rather than faith or science.
I don’t know Kelly. I have known a few scientists in my day and they seem to take their work very seriously. They tend; in fact, to be very serious people in general and usually have a pretty serious intellect to go with it. My sister in law, for instance, is a scientist. She attends Church every Sunday and quite frankly it would be much easier for he ...[text shortened]... s some degree of faith. People in glass houses, my friend…people in glass houses.
TheSkipper
The argument around faith vs fact is interesting. Do I know my hand is at the end of my arm or do I believe it. I suspect KJ's argument needs clearer definitions of what faith and fact mean, I suspect we haven't agreed terms.
However, agreeing terms is something KJ has difficulty with. In the context of the argument the use of the terms 'kind' and 'macro-evolution' have been bandied about but never defined. They are, of course, terms borrowed from the IDers, terms discredited in all but the IDer's politicised quasi science.
3 edits
Originally posted by amannionIt was the religous who rejected evoultionism as well as the evoultionists who rejected religion..
Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
Why is this?
Does it have to be the case?
I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
But neither 'technically' disprove each other
Originally posted by Vladamir no1Have evolutionary biologists rejected religion in greater numbers than the rest of society? I think not. Many may have settled on the bible as allegorical truth rather than literal truth. Does that make them atheists?
It was the religous who rejected evoultionism as well as the evoultionists who rejected religion..
But neither 'technically' disprove each other
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay, let's settle this right now ...
Far be it from me to answer for KJ, but...
Your post presupposes that only the totally informed should have an opinion on any matter. If only the totally informed were to have opinions, these forums would be reduced to about a page and a half for all subject matters.
Additionally, one need not know everything relative to a field in order to detect i ...[text shortened]... t require a total understanding of the entire formula in order to point out the gaps themselves.
Where and what are the "gaps" you and many others seem to think are obvious? In fact, what do you mean by "gaps" at all?
It seems to me that "gaps" is just shorthand for "I don't believe it's correct so I will denigrate it any way I can". Now if that's the case, then tell us that. If not, and you are trully aware of flaws or incorrect logic or whatever it is these "gaps" are, the please fill me in ...
Originally posted by amannionSeriously? As if:
Okay, let's settle this right now ...
Where and what are the "gaps" you and many others seem to think are obvious? In fact, what do you mean by "gaps" at all?
It seems to me that "gaps" is just shorthand for "I don't believe it's correct so I will denigrate it any way I can". Now if that's the case, then tell us that. If not, and you are trully aware of ...[text shortened]... s or incorrect logic or whatever it is these "gaps" are, the please fill me in ...
they haven't been numerated, renumerated, nrenumerated beyond counting
you don't know
spelling them out here would yield anything remotely close to agreement
you (or any other diehard) would change their mind when faced with the same
...as if!