Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View The jury is still out on evolution.
Show More
Loading...
Flag Vistronic November 6, 2007 10:14 PM EST
George Walker Bush the forty-third and current President of the United States of America:
"The jury is still out" on evolution.

I agree
Vis.
Flag Oncomintrain November 6, 2007 11:04 PM EST
If the president used cocaine, racked up DUIs, and used his father's influence to avoid active military service, and then many years later plunged the country in to a military morass that was also a diplomatic death sentence, would you do those things too?

If you're looking to our current "leadership" for guidance on science, you are very much barking up the wrong tree.

The jury on the Theory of Evolution IS still out... to exactly the same extent that the Theories of Gravity, Relativity, and Germ-borne Illness are still out. Which is to say: science always accepts the possibility, no matter how remote, that future evidence will invalidate our current understanding. However, virtually no one actually working in these fields seriously questions their validity, because it is re-affirmed with every new discovery. If anything, we may discover that our current understanding fits WITHIN a larger understanding... much the way Newtonian Physics fit within Relativistic Physics.
Flag nicoletate November 6, 2007 11:21 PM EST
[QUOTE=Vistronic;50196]George Walker Bush the forty-third and current President of the United States of America:
"The jury is still out" on evolution.

I agree
Vis.[/QUOTE]


"The jury is still out on evolution,"....that stinks, is there anything else to remember GWalkerB  for in his past Presidency. I don't care if evolution is true or not, but that really stinks!!!
Flag inherentcomplexity November 6, 2007 11:33 PM EST
Sorry, but politicians most of the time have no clue about science or technology. Helmut Kohl once said (about 'information superhighways'): "Highways are an affair of the states". You don't ask your doctor for legal advise or a plumber for help with Unix-problems. So why look at a politician for scientific advise? Besides, OT has formulated things more eloquently than I could.
Flag Blü November 7, 2007 2:18 AM EST
That's blu with an umlaut

Vis

The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of examinable evidence (which you might enjoy checking out one day).  It's striking how its opponents shout unfounded assertions against it from afar, or worry at little peripheral things but virtually NEVER enter into reasoned debate by publishing peer-reviewed criticism of the facts themselves or the theory itself.

But just imagine that it needed a clincher.  What could be more affirmative of its essential correctness than that George Bush was against it?
Flag Ridcully November 7, 2007 7:26 AM EST

OncominTrain wrote:

If you're looking to our current "leadership" for guidance on science, you are very much barking up the wrong tree.



The Union of Concerned Scientists has released this statement: "The actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine the morale and compromise the integrity of scientists working for and advising America's world-class governmental research institutions and agencies."

Flag redwood_myst November 7, 2007 8:48 AM EST
If the jury is still out on evolution, let's hear the names of the non-Christian scientists that are still deliberating.

Vis, you and George W. are free to hold whatever worldview you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this particular worldview runs counter to what most people who actually study the evdence think. 

RM
Flag Urukai November 7, 2007 8:51 AM EST

Vistronic wrote:

George Walker Bush the forty-third and current President of the United States of America:
"The jury is still out" on evolution.

I agree
Vis.



Which jury would that be?

Here is a 'jury' of scientific organizations who believe that Evolution is real and well supported by sound science...
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of University Professors
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Botanical Society of America
Council of Europe (The Committee for Science and Education)
Elie Wiesel Foundation Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative organization
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
The National Academy of Sciences from 67 countries issued a statement (The Interacademy Statement on The Teaching of Evolution)
The Faculty of Science from the University of New South Wales
Kentucky Academy of Science
National Science Teachers Association
Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences

This list is nowhere near exhaustive and admittedly the people in these groups are Not low grade functionally illiterate morons with cocaine and alcohol habits as the intellectually illustrious interloper in the White House is but you take what you can get...

Flag udcstb November 7, 2007 9:04 AM EST
[QUOTE=Vistronic;50196]George Walker Bush the forty-third and current President of the United States of America:
"The jury is still out" on evolution.

I agree
Vis.[/QUOTE]

If truth be told, actually the jury is out on George HW Bush.  And the prospect of a favorable verdict is slim.
Flag Vistronic November 7, 2007 10:12 AM EST
The Jury is still in deliberation and has been since the scopes trial. The numbers for USA population support this view that the jury is still out. (Many flat out say evolution is wrong)

"
But one of the strangest moments of the night came when the candidates were asked about evolution. The question was put directly to McCain, who answered with a simple "yes" before adding, "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."
Then all of the candidates were asked to indicate which of them DO NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo each raised a hand. But that was it -- the debate moved on -- no follow up question and no chance for the candidates to qualify their answers or not. "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2 … f_god.html

It appears the Republican party is the pro-creation party in the coming election. It is rather unfortunate that the debate did not take this opportunity to examine this important issue.

But as we can see, people of reasonable intelligence do not have to cow-tow to the evolution party line to be politically correct.
Flag teilhard November 7, 2007 10:18 AM EST
Geo. "Dubya" Bush is an expert re:

The Standing of The Biological Theory of Evolution
in the same degree as his expertise re: "nuke-ya-lur" weapons ...
Flag hortonthrockmorton November 7, 2007 10:23 AM EST
The jury might be out if the jury is made up of you and GWB, or if the jury is made up of evangelical Christian broadcasters, or even the entire American population.

But science isn't about what the majority of people think.


If the jury is made up of the scientific community, then the jury is in.
Flag Urukai November 7, 2007 1:23 PM EST
"The Jury is still in deliberation and has been since the scopes trial. The numbers for USA population support this view that the jury is still out. (Many flat out say evolution is wrong)" Vistronic

Again what jury?And many flat out who...? - Are you talking about the average citizen who has little to no knowledge of the functioning mechanisms of Evolution (although thankfully that is changing) and who ends up going with their lay parents Beliefs or are you talking about scientists who actually study Evolution and have a working knowledge of the subject? I don't think its the latter.


You mention a couple of bible belt politicians as if these people who are as untrained in science probably less so then the average junior highschool student have a soap box to speak from.
Their numbers are infinitesimally low as they do not come out of their caves except around election time. And I can tell you outside the bible belt the numbers drop even lower because really outside the biblebelt and the bible what is their source for valid scientific information?

"It appears the Republican party is the pro-creation party in the coming election. It is rather unfortunate that the debate did not take this opportunity to examine this important issue."
Vistronic

There was no debate because there is no debate, there is no issue - trying to turn creation mythology into literal history is not just a dying horse, it is a dead one except I guess to those with an agenda which brings me to my next point.

"But as we can see, people of reasonable intelligence do not have to cow-tow to the evolution party line to be politically correct."
Vistronic

The evolution partyline - hmmm
Evolution describes the developmental and adaptive changes in and of species over time - it involves reproduction, mutation and the randomness of natural selection. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.
Evolution has no partyline, it does not have an agenda or an ulterior motive political correct or otherwise. it just is. What it is, is also measurable and testable and subject to scientific peer review unlike creationism or in another form intelligent design whose proponents don't even try to subject it to serious scientific testing before attempting to interject into school curriculums.

Science does not have a partyline or an agenda or an ulterior motive. it is does not care about politics or people's views or even people really. It just is - clean, clear and fresh as when world was new 4 1/2 Billion years ago in a universe about 15 billion years old....
People with average and above average intelligence know that.
Flag Urukai November 7, 2007 1:23 PM EST
"The Jury is still in deliberation and has been since the scopes trial. The numbers for USA population support this view that the jury is still out. (Many flat out say evolution is wrong)" Vistronic

Again what jury?And many flat out who...? - Are you talking about the average citizen who has little to no knowledge of the functioning mechanisms of Evolution (although thankfully that is changing) and who ends up going with their lay parents Beliefs or are you talking about scientists who actually study Evolution and have a working knowledge of the subject? I don't think its the latter.


You mention a couple of bible belt politicians as if these people who are as untrained in science probably less so then the average junior highschool student have a soap box to speak from.
Their numbers are infinitesimally low as they do not come out of their caves except around election time. And I can tell you outside the bible belt the numbers drop even lower because really outside the biblebelt and the bible what is their source for valid scientific information?

"It appears the Republican party is the pro-creation party in the coming election. It is rather unfortunate that the debate did not take this opportunity to examine this important issue."
Vistronic

There was no debate because there is no debate, there is no issue - trying to turn creation mythology into literal history is not just a dying horse, it is a dead one except I guess to those with an agenda which brings me to my next point.

"But as we can see, people of reasonable intelligence do not have to cow-tow to the evolution party line to be politically correct."
Vistronic

The evolution partyline - hmmm
Evolution describes the developmental and adaptive changes in and of species over time - it involves reproduction, mutation and the randomness of natural selection. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.
Evolution has no partyline, it does not have an agenda or an ulterior motive political correct or otherwise. it just is. What it is, is also measurable and testable and subject to scientific peer review unlike creationism or in another form intelligent design whose proponents don't even try to subject it to serious scientific testing before attempting to interject into school curriculums.

Science does not have a partyline or an agenda or an ulterior motive. it is does not care about politics or people's views or even people really. It just is - clean, clear and fresh as when world was new 4 1/2 Billion years ago in a universe about 15 billion years old....
People with average and above average intelligence know that.
Flag teilhard November 7, 2007 2:25 PM EST
Certainly  GOOD "Science" does not, per se,
have some "kind" of "party line" or ideologcal mind-set ...

SOME "Scientists,"
however, being Fully Human,
DO push and evince those very foibles
( Rick Dawkins is ONE such who comes to mind ) ...
Flag teilhard November 7, 2007 2:25 PM EST
Certainly  GOOD "Science" does not, per se,
have some "kind" of "party line" or ideologcal mind-set ...

SOME "Scientists,"
however, being Fully Human,
DO push and evince those very foibles
( Rick Dawkins is ONE such who comes to mind ) ...
Flag Ridcully November 7, 2007 2:38 PM EST

Vistronic wrote:

Then all of the candidates were asked to indicate which of them DO NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo each raised a hand. But that was it -- the debate moved on -- no follow up question and no chance for the candidates to qualify their answers or not. "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2 … f_god.html

It appears the Republican party is the pro-creation party in the coming election. It is rather unfortunate that the debate did not take this opportunity to examine this important issue.



Of all the Republican candidates, only 3 raised their hands.  I don't think that makes the Republicans the creationism party, but hey, if their eventual candidate wishes to run on that, go for it.

Also, it's just as well they didn't follow up on that question.  I doubt if any of those guys know much of anything about science one way or another.  It'd be a pretty pointless discussion in other words.

Flag Ridcully November 7, 2007 2:38 PM EST

Vistronic wrote:

Then all of the candidates were asked to indicate which of them DO NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo each raised a hand. But that was it -- the debate moved on -- no follow up question and no chance for the candidates to qualify their answers or not. "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2 … f_god.html

It appears the Republican party is the pro-creation party in the coming election. It is rather unfortunate that the debate did not take this opportunity to examine this important issue.



Of all the Republican candidates, only 3 raised their hands.  I don't think that makes the Republicans the creationism party, but hey, if their eventual candidate wishes to run on that, go for it.

Also, it's just as well they didn't follow up on that question.  I doubt if any of those guys know much of anything about science one way or another.  It'd be a pretty pointless discussion in other words.

Flag bluehorserunning November 7, 2007 2:47 PM EST
The jury Vis cites is the same jury that thinks that the motions of planets control their personalities and what happens to them day -to- day.
Flag bluehorserunning November 7, 2007 2:47 PM EST
The jury Vis cites is the same jury that thinks that the motions of planets control their personalities and what happens to them day -to- day.
Flag wohali November 7, 2007 4:07 PM EST
"Is our children learning?"

George W Bush
Flag teilhard November 7, 2007 7:41 PM EST
"What's your Star Sign? Do you come here often ... ?"
Flag brightmoon November 7, 2007 10:11 PM EST
:eek:[QUOTE=Vistronic;50196]George Walker Bush the forty-third and current President of the United States of America:
"The jury is still out" on evolution.

I agree
Vis.[/QUOTE]

i dont :(, bush is pitiably ignorant about science
Flag RandyK37922 November 8, 2007 1:24 AM EST
Vis,

The fact that " many flat out say that evolution is wrong" says nothing about its validity. Many used to think that the world is flat, but this does not make it so. This argument is about where the evidence lies, not about the president's views. I am a Christian, but I must view the Bible as mans best attempt to understand the world of 2000 years ago. We have progressed in our knowledge at least a little since then, and I think that it is OK to account for this.
Flag wohali November 8, 2007 12:28 PM EST
Hi Randy!

Welcome to Science & Religion Boards.............:cool:
Flag Vistronic November 8, 2007 6:31 PM EST
Hello Everyone,
The common theme among many replies here is that science has nothing to say about those things... vis-a-vis.. Religion, Faith , and by inference Creationism.

I disagree.

The philosophy of "science" so called, or the philosophy of a general evolutionary type movement within "science", the "scientific method" only crowd,  strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO.
Illustrated by this statement I will make but not agree with,
Every area of knowledge must be proven by the "scientific method".

Why do you all claim it stops at religion and faith? Carry this philosophy to its conclusion.

The crux.
God must be proven by the scientific method.
and in its wake,
matters of faith and religion also.

In some ways I don't have a problem with that.
I personally think that true science does point to God and someday will prove that.
In the meantime I have no problem with saying things change and adapt over time.
I have no problem with a old or a young earth.

What I have a problem with is not giving God the glory for his creation.
That is the real issue beyond these speculations about mechanics of creation.

Vis.
Flag udcstb November 8, 2007 7:37 PM EST
Vis, careful for what you wish for.   I don't think you want science "proving God".  You may have a worse situation than you think you have now.   You may have committed to accepting outcomes that change your worldview.
Flag nicoletate November 8, 2007 11:58 PM EST
[QUOTE=udcstb;55252]Vis, careful for what you wish for.   I don't think you want science "proving God".  You may have a worse situation than you think you have now.   You may have committed to accepting outcomes that change your worldview.[/QUOTE]

I disagree,  science can give it everything it's got, and the outcome would still leave room for faith. Anyway, there's no way science can prove God without God, until then the outcome would still just be science, with no relations with God.
Flag Blü November 9, 2007 6:10 AM EST
That's blu with an umlaut

Vis

The philosophy ... of a general evolutionary type movement within "science", the "scientific method" only crowd, strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO.
Illustrated by this statement I will make but not agree with,
Every area of knowledge must be proven by the "scientific method".

Why do you all claim it stops at religion and faith? Carry this philosophy to its conclusion.


I never thought it did.  I think everything in and about the natural world is examinable by science.  It's true that we haven't spent a lot of time working out theories of 'wisdom' or 'ethics' via testable and falsifiable propositions, but we're starting to, and we have many more tools available these days than we did even a decade ago.

We have a hugely larger basis for ethics these days, for example.  In another post here I mentioned that New Scientist this week has an article about confirmation that mirror neurons exist in the human brain - till now they'd only been hypothesized, though they'd been observed and studied in the brains of macaques.  Mirror neurons work when you do something intentionally AND when you watch someone else doing the same thing.  They're a major mechanism for our natural empathy.

Watch this space.
Flag ozero November 9, 2007 6:52 AM EST
vis: "...the "scientific method" only crowd, strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO."

Don't you think that the real problem is not science pushing people toward athiesm or agnosticism, but "creationism religion".  People are not stupid and they can see the dishonesty and deceit and politicization within the fundamentalist movement.   None of the real Christian denominations are complaining about science turning their people off, they suggest other problems.  No other sect is so full of such obvious liars.  I'm not talking about people who make statements that they truly believe in, but are in error, but people who know that what they are claiming are lies.  They've been called on them before, acknowledged them publicly and then turn around and use the same lies the next time they speak at a church or gathering.  I don't think anything is as deadly to faith as deceit.   Within science there have been lies, piltdown man etc, that are often brought up by creationists, but the people who exposed those lies were scientists.  Of all the top creationists who have been exposed as liars, none of them were brought to the carpet by other creationists.  It makes it appear that the whole movement is dishonest, is the problem.  Start a movement to bring honesty to your religion and maybe you wouldn't see so many of them going to athiesm or agnosticism.

*note: the latest problems at Oral Roberts are an exception.  The problems were raised by members of that school (who were then fired.  No one says that the path of truth is easy.)

PS: I've never heard of any "scientific method only" crowd.   Almost all people who accept the scientific method have other, extra-scientific ideas, some deist, some absurd, some simply unproveable.  That "scientific method only" idea should be carefully reexamined.  Read the book "What we believe, but cannot prove."  What you mean with leaning toward athiesm is leaning away from inerrancy.  Not the same thing in the real world.
Flag brightmoon November 9, 2007 10:58 PM EST
vis: "...the "scientific method" only crowd, strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO."

methodological naturalism just means that SCIENCE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THINGS IT CAN'T TEST AGAINST THE REAL WORLD ....that currently consists solely of  natural phenomena
oops sorry bout caps

natural phenomena that looks like supernatural phenomena can be debunked as supernatural and explained

true supernatural phenomena cant be tested

scientists CAN"T answer the God question  and since natural phenomena appears the same whether or not you believe in a God,  we as scientists arent really interested in a SCIENTIFIC exploration of God

what youre describing is called philosophical naturalism and is a philosophy not a scientific method


IMHO what "leans a person towards atheism" are the fabrications and outright nonsense creationists have to accept in order to believe in a God ......  im quite sure you can google Glenn Morton who's written about why he became an agnostic if not an atheist 


if i had to choose between believing the ignorant stuff creationists have to and becoming an atheist ..frankly id be an atheist....but my family* never believed that YEC or OEC stuff so im not a atheist


*honestly, i dont know how...  im racially mixed and all of my moms folks are southerners ....none of them accept YEC and they still live there and have lived there since slavery days
Flag teilhard November 10, 2007 10:11 AM EST
There ARE indeed FAR more than only TWO options,
i.e.,
EITHER
(1)  a naive Literal-Historical-Factual understanding of Bronze Age Mythological Stories,
OR
(2) "Atheism" ...
Flag Vistronic November 11, 2007 10:45 PM EST

ozero wrote:

vis: "...the "scientific method" only crowd, strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO."

Don't you think that the real problem is not science pushing people toward atheism or agnosticism, but "creationism religion". People are not stupid and they can see the dishonesty and deceit and politicization within the fundamentalist movement. None of the real Christian denominations are complaining about science turning their people off, they suggest other problems. No other sect is so full of such obvious liars. I'm not talking about people who make statements that they truly believe in, but are in error, but people who know that what they are claiming are lies. They've been called on them before, acknowledged them publicly and then turn around and use the same lies the next time they speak at a church or gathering. I don't think anything is as deadly to faith as deceit. Within science there have been lies, piltdown man etc, that are often brought up by creationists, but the people who exposed those lies were scientists. Of all the top creationists who have been exposed as liars, none of them were brought to the carpet by other creationists. It makes it appear that the whole movement is dishonest, is the problem. Start a movement to bring honesty to your religion and maybe you wouldn't see so many of them going to atheism or agnosticism.



The following reply is my opinion.

Hello, lets be clear on one thing,

Rev 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."


This is the warning that Creationists including myself should listen and heed.
The majority of Creationists are people of the "word" and try to live there lives the opposite of liars.

The minority do not. They "bend" reality (sic) for the greater good (or so it appears to them, sometimes unintentionally).

This very much grieves many.

The "YEC creationism" is not a tenet of faith in Jesus or salvation IMHO,
To me Creation by God is a paramount statement but becoming born again is the major concern. The Creation mechanics of how or why are in his hands.

That said I still favor a literal translation of the Bible.
I still contend that Jesus is a valid figure in history and in the current time ( and to me the Savior).
That Genesis is a most Logical and Beautiful and accurate Creation account.
I apologize to all here who where offended by "creationist" liars. I can assure you that many, many, creationists are not.

Just as many Christian Television shows are NOT hosted by con men. Some maybe, the minority.

In His service,
Vis.

Flag Vistronic November 11, 2007 11:20 PM EST
[quote=Bl

Bummer I just lost my next post... bugs more later...
Flag Oncomintrain November 12, 2007 2:01 AM EST
[QUOTE=teilhard;58625]There ARE indeed FAR more than only TWO options,
i.e.,
EITHER
(1)  a naive Literal-Historical-Factual understanding of Bronze Age Mythological Stories,
OR
(2) "Atheism" ...[/QUOTE]

I think you are awfully hard on the Bronze Age, frankly. Exactly what do you imagine distances your faith from theirs? A few volumes of Kierkegaard? The Bible was WRITTEN in the Bronze Age, you know. I am actively curious to know what you know about God that Cicero didn't. And I'm not being facetious. I honestly am curious.
Flag bluehorserunning November 12, 2007 3:41 AM EST
[QUOTE=Vistronic;61929] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all [/SIZE]liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Heya Vis-
where in this anti-pantheon do you place the scientists?  I like 'sorcerer,' myself.
Flag teilhard November 12, 2007 1:03 PM EST
Who says Fr. Teilhard
"knows more about 'God' than Cicero did" ... ???
Flag DGMelby November 13, 2007 7:36 AM EST
[QUOTE=Vistronic;50912]It appears the Republican party is the pro-creation party in the coming election. It is rather unfortunate that the debate did not take this opportunity to examine this important issue.

But as we can see, people of reasonable intelligence do not have to cow-tow to the evolution party line to be politically correct.[/QUOTE]

Since the Republican party sold its soul and integrity to the Religious Right, in exchange for more votes, I haven't been overly impressed by them.  Quite frankly, I'm still waiting for Christian Evangelicals to wake up and realize how badly they're being used, and how their quest for restore Christian Privilage is tearing this country apart.  The old saying is true:  when politics sleeps in the same bed as religion, both are degraded.  It is amazing how Matthew 23 still describes, and warns against, the Religious Right.

As a former Republican, I'm disgusted by the current party leadership, especially the Bush administration.  The Republican party used to advertise itself as the party of fiscal responsibility.  Under Reagan and the Bushes, it's now the party of deficit spending.    If Reagan and the Bushs had followed the trends of past Republicans AND Democrats, we would've had no national debt by now.  It used to be the party of government non-intrusion into private life.  Now its the party that prides itself for its intrusion, in the name of Christinaity to boot.

At any rate, Reality isn't decided by jury, nor by popular vote.  Reality isn't decided by wishful thinking nor by ignorance.  Reality certainly isn't decided by deception, which is what statements like "The jury is out on evolution," are.  Reality is the sole arbiter of Truth, and science remains the best tool for approaching that Truth in regards to the natural world.  The jury is in on evolution, and it has been found to be true.  All is left is teasing out the minute details.

{returns to lurking... following my first post on the new boards.}
Flag Kwinters November 13, 2007 3:09 PM EST
Vis,

>>>What I have a problem with is not giving God the glory for his creation.


Where is your evidence that God created anything?  All the evidence says that your imaginary god ain't done shit.

And if he did do shit, he's a pretty lousy creator.  Humans beings are making genetic improvements on 'his' shit design, so what sort of C-student god are you fobbing off on us?

And where is your evidence for this imaginary being, other than in your head?

Got anything real?

Of course you don't.
Flag Vistronic November 13, 2007 10:43 PM EST

Blü wrote:

That's blu with an umlaut

Vis

The philosophy ... of a general evolutionary type movement within "science", the "scientific method" only crowd, strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO.
Illustrated by this statement I will make but not agree with,
Every area of knowledge must be proven by the "scientific method".

Why do you all claim it stops at religion and faith? Carry this philosophy to its conclusion.

I never thought it did. I think everything in and about the natural world is examinable by science. It's true that we haven't spent a lot of time working out theories of 'wisdom' or 'ethics' via testable and falsifiable propositions, but we're starting to, and we have many more tools available these days than we did even a decade ago.



Thank you for this honest answer. This is what I was saying. If you take the philosphy of current science this is indeed the outcome. I know I have followed this same road to this same conclusion. To me though "science" does not trump faith.

In His service,
Vis.

Flag Vistronic November 13, 2007 10:49 PM EST

bright moon wrote:



what youre describing is called philosophical naturalism and is a philosophy not a scientific method  IMHO what "leans a person towards atheism" are the fabrications and outright nonsense creationists have to accept in order to believe in a God ...... im quite sure you can google Glenn Morton who's written about why he became an agnostic if not an atheist
*honestly, i dont know how... im racially mixed and all of my moms folks are southerners ....none of them accept YEC and they still live there and have lived there since slavery days



Thank you for the correction. I contend then that current "science" does lead some to philosophical naturalism in turn leads some to agnosticism or atheist-ism.

In his service,
Vis.

Flag Vistronic November 13, 2007 10:50 PM EST

bluehorserunning wrote:

Vistronic wrote:

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all [/size]liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Heya Vis-
where in this anti-pantheon do you place the scientists? I like 'sorcerer,' myself.



:D
aahhh I was thinking of just the Liar part

all the best,
Vis.

Flag Vistronic November 13, 2007 11:02 PM EST

DGMelby wrote:

Since the Republican party sold its soul and integrity to the Religious Right, in exchange for more votes, I haven't been overly impressed by them. Quite frankly, I'm still waiting for Christian Evangelicals to wake up and realize how badly they're being used, and how their quest for restore Christian Privilage is tearing this country apart. The old saying is true: when politics sleeps in the same bed as religion, both are degraded. It is amazing how Matthew 23 still describes, and warns against, the Religious Right.}



It may surprise you to learn Melby that there indeed is a wind blowing carrying "some" of us away from the republican party. The last congressional election I know that "some" voted democrat to show there disapproval.

And even now a strong green movement is growing called "creation care"... google it if you like as its a big topic in its own right. I myself am leaning that way, and believe it or not I am evaluating my view on the death penalty and have been for several years and I am not alone in this. So there is hopeful signs IMHO that some of this self inflected insanity is turning around.

Cheers,
Vis.

Good to hear from you.

Flag redwood_myst November 13, 2007 11:10 PM EST
[QUOTE=Vistronic;55095.]What I have a problem with is not giving God the glory for his creation.
That is the real issue beyond these speculations about mechanics of creation.[/QUOTE]

I don't see why that is an issue of public concern.  If you believe the glory of the universe should go to your God, then honor your God in that way.  If the guy next to you thinks said glory should go to Ptah, then let him honor his God.  And if the next guy in line doesn't think there is any God, then he won't praise any God at all.

And none of it changes the science in the slightest.

These are  internal feelings and opinions.  I understand that they are personal truths which can have a powerful effect on your life.  And there is nothing (at least in our country) to prevent you from expressing that. But why on Earth would you expect anyone but you to express your feelings about God and the universe?  Why should there be a universal nod to what is not a universally accepted ideal?  Why do you have to have a chorus to back up your faith? What more are you looking for?

RM
Flag Vistronic November 13, 2007 11:13 PM EST

KWinters wrote:

Vis,

>>>What I have a problem with is not giving God the glory for his creation.


Where is your evidence that God created anything? All the evidence says that your imaginary god ain't done shit.

And if he did do shit, he's a pretty lousy creator. Humans beings are making genetic improvements on 'his' shit design, so what sort of C-student god are you fobbing off on us?

And where is your evidence for this imaginary being, other than in your head?

Got anything real?

Of course you don't.


________________________________________________________________________

Hello,
In my head?
Well as it seems to fit the tone, I do not see man or science creating life or even understanding the spark of life. Therefore "in my head" (and in the Bible) God is the foundation of all this. God of the gaps? No. Something has to advance life forward. This something is part of God to me.

Real?
Well before I was a Christian using logic I figured there must be a God because whom throw the switch on the big bang? Who started the show going?
These are philosophical questions... some may say not "hard" science... but since we inhabit our minds,  philosophical questions are valid, and part of science to me at least.

Have a great day,
Vis.

Flag nicoletate November 13, 2007 11:32 PM EST
[QUOTE=OncominTrain;62198]I think you are awfully hard on the Bronze Age, frankly. Exactly what do you imagine distances your faith from theirs? A few volumes of Kierkegaard? The Bible was WRITTEN in the Bronze Age, you know. I am actively curious to know what you know about God that Cicero didn't. And I'm not being facetious. I honestly am curious.[/QUOTE]

I believe that all variations of God are of the same God, no matter what the age, time, or what have you. If God is real, he is of all time and all cultures. I don't believe that the idea of God is imagined, so in my opinion it's the variations of reality that distances faith from others. I believe the higher purpose is morality, not religion.
Flag Vistronic November 13, 2007 11:37 PM EST
Redwood myst: I don't see why that is an issue of public concern.
Vis: Not to sound flippant but this is Beliefnet after all.

RM: These are internal feelings and opinions. I understand that they are personal truths which can have a powerful effect on your life. And there is nothing (at least in our country) to prevent you from expressing that. But why on Earth would you expect anyone but you to express your feelings about God and the universe?
Vis: Well heres where I get that idea:
Rom 1:20  By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse.
RM: Why should there be a universal nod to what is not a universally accepted ideal? Why do you have to have a chorus to back up your faith? What more are you looking for?
Vis: well it kind of the creed:
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

all the best
Vis.
Flag Vistronic November 13, 2007 11:41 PM EST

nicoletate wrote:

I I don't believe that the idea of God is imagined,



I can agree with that
Vis.:)

Flag bluehorserunning November 14, 2007 6:04 PM EST
So, Vis...
you think that *your* faith is somehow imputed if you fail to convert us?

bummer.
Flag Urukai November 19, 2007 7:30 PM EST
Vistronic,
Your very first post in this thread implied you disagree with evolution...instead of plowing that field why not make your case for what you would replace evolution with...

Blessings
Flag Urukai November 19, 2007 7:30 PM EST
Vistronic,
Your very first post in this thread implied you disagree with evolution...instead of plowing that field why not make your case for what you would replace evolution with...

Blessings
Flag Blü November 19, 2007 7:35 PM EST
.
Vis

Go ye into all the world ...

But as I like to point out, that's a breach of the Golden Rule.

One should not stick one's religious beliefs up someone else's nose unless one wants them to stick theirs up one's own nose.

A point that various evangelists I've met seem to resent.
Flag drawkcab November 19, 2007 8:41 PM EST
[QUOTE=Blü;81388].
Vis

Go ye into all the world ...

But as I like to point out, that's a breach of the Golden Rule.

One should not stick one's religious beliefs up someone else's nose unless one wants them to stick theirs up one's own nose.

A point that various evangelists I've met seem to resent.[/QUOTE]

That is a point I myself have a problem with. I can't stay with any Church I go to, for sooner or later this comes in contact with me. Jesus said, Go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. No where have I found that it says "Go and beat the people over the head with your religion.
drawkcab
Flag drawkcab November 19, 2007 8:41 PM EST
[QUOTE=Blü;81388].
Vis

Go ye into all the world ...

But as I like to point out, that's a breach of the Golden Rule.

One should not stick one's religious beliefs up someone else's nose unless one wants them to stick theirs up one's own nose.

A point that various evangelists I've met seem to resent.[/QUOTE]

That is a point I myself have a problem with. I can't stay with any Church I go to, for sooner or later this comes in contact with me. Jesus said, Go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. No where have I found that it says "Go and beat the people over the head with your religion.
drawkcab
Flag drawkcab November 19, 2007 9:23 PM EST
[QUOTE=OncominTrain;50270]If the president used cocaine, racked up DUIs, and used his father's influence to avoid active military service, and then many years later plunged the country in to a military morass that was also a diplomatic death sentence, would you do those things too?

(He survived the 2004 vote, so he got his eight years. He'll draw his 1 or 2 thousand dollars a year for the rest of his life. Just the same as Clinton did. And clinton had his chance to rid the world of ol sammy, and didn't. Ol sammy knows that if he raises his head up in front of Bush, he's dead man. He thought he would get the same treatment he got from Clinton, but Bush surpised him there. Now he is just waiting until the demicrates get back in power so he can hit us harder. But there will be no trouble from the democrates and he knows it. The demictates are a bunch of cowards and knows that too. Mark my words boys, when Bush is out, the dung will hit the fan, how can the Dems go to war, when they got in office because they don't no wars. If ol Sammy hits in 2009, and Dems do something, that will make them not only cowards, but a pack of hypoctites as well. a A that is the world will see them too. No they have tied their own hands.) 

People still say Darwin had it right, mostly on his son's say so. who I might add didn't have half the intelligence of his father. Darwin in his book "Species..." stated this about his theroy "Somehow, it never seems to prove its  self." From the time he wrote that ,til the time he died, never reversed his stance on that. And about this leaders of science!!!!! Gore is pushing the theory on global warming. But there is some one that knows more about the earths weather than he does. Consider it;
Weather Channel Founder says Global Warming Greatest Scam in History


If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an artical published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completel y replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
Flag nicoletate November 19, 2007 9:40 PM EST
[QUOTE=drawkcab;81681][QUOTE=OncominTrain;50270]If the president used cocaine, racked up DUIs, and used his father's influence to avoid active military service, and then many years later plunged the country in to a military morass that was also a diplomatic death sentence, would you do those things too?

(He survived the 2004 vote, so he got his eight years. He'll draw his 1 or 2 thousand dollars a year for the rest of his life. Just the same as Clinton did. And clinton had his chance to rid the world of ol sammy, and didn't. Ol sammy knows that if he raises his head up in front of Bush, he's dead man. He thought he would get the same treatment he got from Clinton, but Bush surpised him there. Now he is just waiting until the demicrates get back in power so he can hit us harder. But there will be no trouble from the democrates and he knows it. The demictates are a bunch of cowards and knows that too. Mark my words boys, when Bush is out, the dung will hit the fan, how can the Dems go to war, when they got in office because they don't no wars. If ol Sammy hits in 2009, and Dems do something, that will make them not only cowards, but a pack of hypoctites as well. a A that is the world will see them too. No they have tied their own hands.) 

People still say Darwin had it right, mostly on his son's say so. who I might add didn't have half the intelligence of his father. Darwin in his book "Species..." stated this about his theroy "Somehow, it never seems to prove its  self." From the time he wrote that ,til the time he died, never reversed his stance on that. And about this leaders of science!!!!! Gore is pushing the theory on global warming. But there is some one that knows more about the earths weather than he does. Consider it;
Weather Channel Founder says Global Warming Greatest Scam in History


If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an artical published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completel y replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.[/QUOTE]

You sound like Dale Dribble, from "King of the Hill".
Flag KARD9000 November 19, 2007 9:50 PM EST
[QUOTE=drawkcab;81681][QUOTE=OncominTrain;50270]If the president used cocaine, racked up DUIs, and used his father's influence to avoid active military service, and then many years later plunged the country in to a military morass that was also a diplomatic death sentence, would you do those things too?

*** I'm not sure your taking OncominTrain's statement as intended.


(He survived the 2004 vote, so he got his eight years. He'll draw his 1 or 2 thousand dollars a year for the rest of his life. Just the same as Clinton did. And clinton had his chance to rid the world of ol sammy, and didn't. Ol sammy knows that if he raises his head up in front of Bush, he's dead man. He thought he would get the same treatment he got from Clinton, but Bush surpised him there. Now he is just waiting until the demicrates get back in power so he can hit us harder. But there will be no trouble from the democrates and he knows it. The demictates are a bunch of cowards and knows that too. Mark my words boys, when Bush is out, the dung will hit the fan, how can the Dems go to war, when they got in office because they don't no wars. If ol Sammy hits in 2009, and Dems do something, that will make them not only cowards, but a pack of hypoctites as well. a A that is the world will see them too. No they have tied their own hands.) 

*** This would be better served if it was posted on the US Political & News Board.


People still say Darwin had it right, mostly on his son's say so. who I might add didn't have half the intelligence of his father. Darwin in his book "Species..." stated this about his theroy "Somehow, it never seems to prove its  self." From the time he wrote that ,til the time he died, never reversed his stance on that. And about this leaders of science!!!!! Gore is pushing the theory on global warming. But there is some one that knows more about the earths weather than he does.

**** Not sure about this.


Consider it;
Weather Channel Founder says Global Warming Greatest Scam in History


If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an artical published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completel y replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

*** And this would be better served on the Environmental Board.  See Bodean.

[/QUOTE]


I'm just offering a little friendly direction.  There are way more experienced people on this board that might have better ideas on how to address your post - I bow to their advice.  :)
Flag rbchaddy2000 November 29, 2007 1:41 PM EST
Evolution is fact. I am not impressed that Bush has gone on the bandwagon here. It's not a design that 99% of our DNA watches the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. It's the fact that we share a common evolutionary past. Richard
Flag brightmoon November 29, 2007 7:55 PM EST
dale dribble! ...lol
Flag Vistronic July 27, 2008 2:45 PM EDT
As we approach the election it appears there is no creation candidate. But as close as we can get is a Theo-Evo McCain. That is if I understand him correctly.

Now Obama if indeed he follows mainline Theology would be a Creationist. I wonder? Has anyone heard? Is he a Theo-Evo like McCain.
Flag Christianlib July 27, 2008 2:54 PM EDT
"mainline theology" is NOT Creationist.

Obama is United Church of Christ. You can, if reality is important to you, find a lot of information at their web site.

Note:  That is "United Church of Christ," not "Churches of Christ" is is a very consevative group, and unrelated.
Flag hortonthrockmorton July 27, 2008 3:06 PM EDT
[QUOTE=Vistronic;651314]As we approach the election it appears there is no creation candidate. But as close as we can get is a Theo-Evo McCain. That is if I understand him correctly.

Now Obama if indeed he follows mainline Theology would be a Creationist. I wonder? Has anyone heard? Is he a Theo-Evo like McCain.[/QUOTE]


Given that the only anti-evolution 'Creationists' are those who are either scientifically ignorant or scientifically obstinate, I hope Obama is neither.
Flag Vistronic July 27, 2008 3:14 PM EDT
United Church of Christ embracing evolution




In a new statement on faith, science, and technology from the United Church of Christ, evolution is described as a matter of fact and a way in which God creates. Entitled "A New Voice Arising: A Pastoral Letter on Faith Engaging Science and Technology" (PDF), the statement contains a paragraph reading:[INDENT]Evolution helps us see our faithful God in a new way. Our creator works patiently, calling forth life through complex processes spanning billions of years and waiting for us to awaken and respond in conscious participation in God's own overarching dream for all living things. Evolution also helps us see ourselves anew, as creatures who share a common origin with other species. Today we know that human bodies and brains share the same genetic and biochemical processes with other creatures, not just mammals but insects, plants, and bacteria. How then should we understand ourselves as evolved creatures, sharing much of our DNA with other species, and at the same time as distinct creatures in the image of God? [/INDENT]The general minister and president of the United Church of Christ, the Reverend John H. Thomas, told The New York Times (January 31, 2008) that the statement was in part intended to counter "the creationist approach, the continuing caricature of the opposition of evolution and religion."

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2 … 4_2008.asp


Well I am a little surprised by this!
Vis.

Flag hortonthrockmorton July 27, 2008 3:27 PM EDT
[QUOTE=Vistronic;651359]  Well I am a little surprised by this!
Vis.[/QUOTE]


How is the above the least bit surprising?

Even the Roman Catholic Church, not known for liberalism, acknowledges the validity of evolutionary theory.
Flag steven_guy July 27, 2008 5:33 PM EDT
Sorry to say this, but I've always thought that Creationists were the lunatic minority in the Christian church throughout the world.

Mainstream Christianity accepts the findings of science and lives in peace with the science which clearly demonstrates the realities of evolution, natural selection and genetics. Christian fundamentalists are the only ones with a problem and it is only a problem for them because they refuse to accept the nature of reality because it is in discord with their absurd belief in an absolutely literal Bible (even though the Bible is inconsistent, frequently contradictory and often simply wrong).


Steven
Flag faith713 July 27, 2008 6:07 PM EDT
[QUOTE=steven_guy;651593]Sorry to say this, but I've always thought that Creationists were the lunatic minority in the Christian church throughout the world.

Mainstream Christianity accepts the findings of science and lives in peace with the science which clearly demonstrates the realities of evolution, natural selection and genetics. Christian fundamentalists are the only ones with a problem and it is only a problem for them because they refuse to accept the nature of reality because it is in discord with their absurd belief in an absolutely literal Bible (even though the Bible is inconsistent, frequently contradictory and often simply wrong).


Steven[/QUOTE]
Maybe it is you who are not living in reality but in an imaginary world where God does not exist :rolleyes:
Flag steven_guy July 27, 2008 6:10 PM EDT
[QUOTE=faith713;651636]Maybe it is you who are not living in reality but in an imaginary world where God does not exist :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


Yeah, along with 95% of the Christians in the world.

Most Christians accept science and reality.
Flag amcolph July 27, 2008 6:26 PM EDT
[QUOTE=faith713;651636]Maybe it is you who are not living in reality but in an imaginary world where God does not exist :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


Is God really the same as the literal and inerrant Bible to you?

Is that what the phrase "the God of the Bible" means?
Flag steven_guy July 27, 2008 6:30 PM EDT
The problems are these:
Creationists are trying to drag American science education into the Dark Ages. No problem here for the rest of the world!
Creationists/Fundamentalists are also damaging the credibility and attractiveness of Christianity for mainstream Christians.

Christian fundamentalist Creationists seem to be in some sort of delusional, parochial fantasy world - where they are in the majority and everyone who doesn't agree with them, including mainstream Christians, are regarded as godless atheists or in denial of the Bible. They worship the Bible in a simplistic, literal way and fail to see the very real possibility of a deeper metaphorical interpretation of the stories therein. Sophisticated modern Christians probably regard the Bible as the starting place of their theology, rather than the end.

Clearly, evolution is a real and vital phenomenon, the world is vastly older than 6,000 years and the universe is between 13 to 14 billion years old. These facts aren't controversial for anyone who isn't in the thrall of a very limited, narrow and myopic religious dogma.

However, I think that it is pretty obvious that fundamentalism is damaging theology as a whole and if anything causes a steep decline in the numbers of rational modern people following the Christian faith, it will be fundamentalists, rather than the occasional august atheist professor from Oxford, Cambridge or Yale (however cute and cuddly our favourite Oxford Professor, Richard Dawkins, may be!).
I would have to say that door knocking Mormons, JWs and the like, from the USA have done more to damage the reputation of theology in my country than any public discussions featuring atheists and skeptics. Australians, by and large, regard proselytising "Bible Bashers" and "God Botherers" are irritating nutters and people one should cross the street to avoid.


Regards,
Steven


Steven
Flag steven_guy July 27, 2008 6:38 PM EDT
[QUOTE=amcolph;651663]Is God really the same as the literal and inerrant Bible to you?

Is that what the phrase "the God of the Bible" means?[/QUOTE]

I would have thought that most Christians believe in a God who exists externally - above and beyond - from the limitations of the Bible?
Amcolph, does this make any sense?




Cheers,
Steven
Flag faith713 July 27, 2008 6:42 PM EDT
[QUOTE=amcolph;651663]Is God really the same as the literal and inerrant Bible to you?

Is that what the phrase "the God of the Bible" means?[/QUOTE]

I believe God inspired the Bible--so it contains Truth. It helps us to understand the characteristics of God and contains prophecy.
Flag amcolph July 27, 2008 6:44 PM EDT
To me, but people like Faith seem pathologically devoted to the 'literal and inerrant' Bible and can't seem to imagine God existing without it.

Does their God live in a book?  It's not an unprecedented idea; didn't the God of the Druids live in an oak tree, or something like that?
Flag steven_guy July 27, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
The jury is most definitely not out on the subject of evolution.

Evolution is observed.
The theory of evolution describes what we see - very well.

If there was any controversy about the fact of evolution it would be a major story in the news and the scientific world. It isn't.


Steven
Flag wohali July 27, 2008 8:10 PM EDT
Hey Vis, help me out here.

Is the jury still out on WMD's in Iraq, too?
Flag Vistronic July 27, 2008 8:14 PM EDT

wohali wrote:

Hey Vis, help me out here.

Is the jury still out on WMD's in Iraq, too?




To me it is.

Hey Man hows it going!
Waz up!


Hey since I started posting again it like "aayyyee who took the mornings, who took the mornings away"

Yea one life in this time frame, lets eat it with bright shining teeth!

The Great spirit is here , he lives inside of us. I feel him and I heard the still small voice advising me in the time of need, man he rocks!

You rock also Indian man,
no weirdness meant,
Vis.

Flag wohali July 27, 2008 8:30 PM EDT
Vis:

To me it is.

Thanks for your answer.

That is chillingly telling.
Flag Vistronic July 27, 2008 10:05 PM EDT

wohali wrote:

Vis:

To me it is.

Thanks for your answer.

That is chillingly telling.






"Though this be madness, yet there is method in it."


Flag wohali July 27, 2008 10:18 PM EDT
Actually, I have to go with the Graham Chapman assessment here.
Flag Vistronic July 28, 2008 7:05 AM EDT
Meaning? What
Flag Vistronic July 28, 2008 5:45 PM EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa

The real reasons Bush went to war

WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar
[LIST]
  • The Guardian,
    [*]Wednesday July 28 2004
    [*]Article history[/LIST]There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports. Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.

    Man that was hard to find for some reason!
    Vis.
  • Flag Vistronic July 28, 2008 5:45 PM EDT
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa

    The real reasons Bush went to war

    WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar
    [LIST]
  • The Guardian,
    [*]Wednesday July 28 2004
    [*]Article history[/LIST]There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports. Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.

    Man that was hard to find for some reason!
    Vis.
  • Flag wohali July 28, 2008 8:24 PM EDT
    Vis, so is the jury still out on WMD's?
    Flag Blü July 29, 2008 12:06 AM EDT
    .
    wohali

    Perhaps we should ask Syria?
    Flag Ridcully July 29, 2008 7:36 AM EDT

    wohali wrote:

    Actually, I have to go with the Graham Chapman assessment here.




    What did Graham say?  He was a funny guy.

    Flag Ridcully July 29, 2008 7:43 AM EDT

    Vistronic wrote:

    The real reasons Bush went to war

    WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar...



    Aside from greed (e.g.,  oil), I think one of the underlying reasons for the US invasion was what I think of as conservative naivism.  I think there were those in the Bush admin that really thought we could march into Iraq and force a modern, pro-western democracy at the point of a gun onto another nation and culture.  It's a pretty silly view of the world, and akin to creationism in that it ignores any sort of complexity, and assumes that expertise in an area is worthless.

    Flag Vistronic July 29, 2008 6:42 PM EDT

    wohali wrote:

    Vis, so is the jury still out on WMD's?



    I think he stashed them.

    _______________________________________

    Speaking of Bush here is a qoute by his father,

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.[/FONT]

    __________________________________

    also

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place.[/FONT]



    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Murnane: It's bullshit.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sherman: What is bullshit?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Murnane: You're welcome[/FONT]
    Flag wohali July 29, 2008 7:01 PM EDT
    I think he stashed them.

    Vis, our people have been occupying the country for over 5 years now, with folks searching high and low.

    We have documents that the most programs were scrapped after 1991.

    We know that the documents used to make the case regarding WMD's were doctored or outright fabrications.

    The White House has said that there are no WMD's.

    So despite an overwhelming amount of evidence, you think that the WMD's are there and that he "stashed" them?
    Flag Vistronic July 29, 2008 7:09 PM EDT
    Powell made a case.
    I bought it.
    I like Powell.
    He should be running.
    Flag Omarkhayyam July 29, 2008 9:23 PM EDT
    Now that kinda figures.

    Buy one slick sales pitch - buy another.
    Flag wohali July 30, 2008 8:23 PM EDT
    Vis:

    Powell made a case.
    I bought it.

    So did lots of other people.

    Powell refers to his making the case with known bad information as a "blot" on his record.

    I like Powell.

    He seems a likeable sort.

    He should be running.

    That can be taken a couple of ways.............

    Vis, seriously, I see a correlation between you thinking that there are still WMDs and having "doubts" about evolution.
    Flag wohali July 30, 2008 8:23 PM EDT
    Vis:

    Powell made a case.
    I bought it.

    So did lots of other people.

    Powell refers to his making the case with known bad information as a "blot" on his record.

    I like Powell.

    He seems a likeable sort.

    He should be running.

    That can be taken a couple of ways.............

    Vis, seriously, I see a correlation between you thinking that there are still WMDs and having "doubts" about evolution.
    Flag Vistronic July 31, 2008 1:40 PM EDT
    Like regardless the facts thats the way it is?
    Perhaps?
    Flag Oncomintrain July 31, 2008 7:09 PM EDT
    [QUOTE=Vistronic;660216]Like regardless the facts thats the way it is?
    Perhaps?[/QUOTE]

    That did seem to be the basis of Powell's assertions, yes... telling us "how it was", regardless of the facts. Indeed, that seems to be the Bush Administration's entire approach to governing.

    Happily, evolutionary science doesn't have to ignore the facts in order to be "the way it is." It was devised on the basis of facts, it won the scientific community over on the basis of facts, it was confirmed, again and again, by facts, and the "fact" is that no fact yet discovered casts any serious scientific doubt on the factuality of the ToE.

    The FACT is that the only ones who seem to have any objection at all to the ToE are religious literalists, who would prefer that their religious literature be treated as fact, no matter what the evidence may show. Or, as you put it: "regardless of the facts, that's the way it is."
    Flag Blü July 31, 2008 7:45 PM EDT
    .
    Vis

    You and I have been over this ground before.

    You were the only fundy to respond to the question, What in your view is the correct relationship between something believed because of faith, and examinable evidence that shows the belief is untrue? - and the fact that you responded impressed me.

    You said that your faith would and must always prevail over examinable evidence to the contrary.

    Is that still your view?  If it is, it means there's no point in talking evidence with you, doesn't it?
    Flag Vistronic August 4, 2008 3:29 PM EDT

    Blü wrote:

    .
    Vis

    You and I have been over this ground before.

    You were the only fundy to respond to the question, What in your view is the correct relationship between something believed because of faith, and examinable evidence that shows the belief is untrue? - and the fact that you responded impressed me.

    You said that your faith would and must always prevail over examinable evidence to the contrary.

    Is that still your view? If it is, it means there's no point in talking evidence with you, doesn't it?



    There is a point.
    The only reason to stop would be if you were trying to proselytize me into evolution, or if I was doing the same for you into my faith.
    That is not my only reason. I come here to talk about these things, and to think about them, and to encourage other creationists, and yes to maybe even convert evolutionists to creationists, or to say you do have to be a fool to be a creationist. I enjoy talking about these things.
    I even have fun here sometimes.
    And I have considered the things you have said BTW.
    Vis.

    Post Your Reply
    <CTRL+Enter> to submit
    Please login to post a reply.
     
      Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
      No registered users viewing
      Advertisement

      Beliefnet On Facebook