evolution vs creation vs Intelligent Design

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 20 2006, 01:01 PM) [snapback]242655[/snapback]</div>

child I will pray for you and I hope you will turn into the direction of the light one day.
Peace be with you, Son.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Amazing Arthur @ Apr 19 2006, 11:16 PM) [snapback]242494[/snapback]</div>

Isn't it amazing how words are twisted? Like a several-millennium-long game of telephone. I've been told, by an ordained, practising minister, no less, that "virgin birth" was a common euphemism for being raped by a Roman soldier. According to the story, Mary was raped and Jesus is a bastard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 19 2006, 11:34 PM) [snapback]242530[/snapback]</div>

Well, I don't buy it. If I say you smell like crap, then launch into a scientific explanation of the body's waste products, I have not minimized the fact that I insulted you. I have only tried to cover up my slur.

I think your post was obvioiusly angry, and the clear meaning was you were insulting Windstrings. Others can read it here: http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&showtopi...ndpost&p=242002 to see if they agree. I reproduce the pertinent parts here for those who don't want to click:

Calling someone who believes basic religious doctrine held by a good proportion of his faith a religo-fascist *is* an insult. And, its not accurate, even when applied to Muslims (who seem to be the new scapegoats). In my opinion, you are simply sensitive on this issue and it just got to you, and you flung an insult at windstrings. In those cases where I have done similar things ... I'm passionate about things as well and I'm no stranger to this dilemma ... I usually realize that I need to apologize to the person I've offended.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 19 2006, 11:34 PM) [snapback]242530[/snapback]</div>

You must be mis-remembering your post. Above, you indicate that you left the thread AFTER he didn't reply, but in the post itself ... with the insult ... you clearly indicate you are done with the thread and leaving. Re-read what you wrote:

Care to reconsider that explanation of the insult?

My little exercise in reading all the posts was due to a criticism from hybridTHEvibe who asked me: "And if you don't read somebody's posts how can you know what they are saying?" So I re-read every post, and reported to all that, except for your one personal insult, I thought everyone was discussing passionate views without resorting to invective.

The irony of it is that your main complaint about windstrings and other conservative Christians is that they are intolerant. To me, your actions here speak of a type of intolerance you have against religious folks. Its a wonderful irony that I have seen in myself in my better introspective moments: those things I most want to avoid are the very things I do!

I don't get upset at your objections, and I'm not defending Windstrings. I was given a challenge I thought was interesting, and felt it was my duty to correct the wrong.

Why don't I get upset at your posts? I'm a "four point Calvinist", which means that the real Calvinists don't like me because of that missing 5th point (i.e., I'm not a "real" Calvinist), and non-Christians don't like me because of some of those other 4 points.

I happen to believe that some people are born with an innate knowledge that there is a God, or at least they are pre-disposed to believe in spiritual things. While others are "wired" such that they simply cannot believe there is a God. When you scratch deep enough, you find most of the religious people always knew there was a God, and most of the atheists never believed there was, even if they were raised in a religious environment. So I can't get too passionate about someone who is not religious; I think they are born that way, and they are pre-destined to be that way. The choice has already been made. Someone who is searching for God is a different story; I'll help him on his journey if I can.

I can't tell who is or who is not predestined for heaven, so I need to be ready to give anyone an answer who requests one. But I'm not the barrier between anyone and heaven ... God is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 20 2006, 11:25 AM) [snapback]242712[/snapback]</div>

That was a rumor about Jesus in the first century as well.

My understanding is that Mary and Joseph, being bethrothed to each other, could have had sex and not had any legal punishment meted out (as an aside, the Jews did not often sentence people to death; their laws were actually fairly liberal for the time period). It was still frowned upon, but was more a matter of shame than it was a crime. So the more common thought is that Jesus was Joseph's son, and the gospel writers simply changed it to a virgin birth to avoid the scandal.

But I find those explanations wanting. I think the reason the gospel writers said Mary was a virgin was to show a fulfillment of a prophecy. That provided a proof text that he was the Messiah, in their eyes. I also happen to believe, as a matter of faith, that she *was* a virgin, but that is beside the point of why the gospel writers focused on the issue.

There's a discipline that looks at ancient writings and determines the best guess as to the age of the manuscript by looking at phrases, the way letters are formed, type of parchment and ink, etc. In the case of the New Testament, it has pushed back the dates of the earliest known fragment of some of the books. So there's a little more confidence in that transmission of the Gospels than a two thousand year old telephone game. Collections of the writings of Paul date from about 100 CE, about 65 years after the death of Jesus. We're pretty sure those are accurate, since the multiple copies tend to agree on most details.

You might find it interesting, because it approaches archeology and seems closer to science than the mystical part of faith. There's a pretty good article about textual criticism at http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/intro.html

 

Regarding putting George Bush's name in the same sentence with Hitler and Stalin:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 18 2006, 11:40 AM) [snapback]241605[/snapback]</div>

Not sure what you mean here. If you are serious, then you either don't know much about Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, or you are having trouble making moral distinctions. If its intended to be a sardonic comment, I'll put a mental smiley face beside it.

The problem I have with equating our modern politicos with the worst of the worst, as Hitler and Stalin were, is that it minimizes the horrors done and trivializes the victims. That's why I wouldn't even put Hussein in the same category; he was pretty bad, but not quite as bad as Hitler and Stalin.

But perhaps you deny the Holocoust, or quibble with the numbers thrown around for Stalin's purges.

Either way, it tends to make me take you less seriously.

It also "poisons the well" in dialog, polarizing people and shutting down communication. Its not a thing specific to Bush haters; we saw it with President Clinton, and will see it with the next President from partisans who oppose them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 20 2006, 11:30 PM) [snapback]243001[/snapback]</div>

Seems a bit uncharitable to confine atheists to hell, then. After all, god made them that way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Apr 20 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]242709[/snapback]</div>

Whos child are you calling me, yours?.. then how old are you?..

And are you proud?

If your calling me Gods Child, then you must believe in God?, so that can't be either?

Maybe your just confused and don't know who your daddy is or who your son is?

And if your going to pray... don't bother... your God doesn't exist anyway so why waste your energy?

I"m not your son either.. I'm pretty sure of that....

The more you try to talk the talk, the more foolish you become.. its not in you.

Since you are not trying to be teachable, it appears you will have to learn this the hard way, I hope its not too late for you.

BTW...Have you always had to learn things the hard way?

Doesn't it drive you nuts when someone knows things about you and you know there is no natural way it could have happened?... are you still in denial?

that alone should have gotten your attention to sway your beliefs...

Lets just say... a little birdy whispered in my ear...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Apr 20 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]243019[/snapback]</div>

I hope your being funny.. why would a God make creatures to not believe in him on purpose?

The more you get into atheism, the more obsurd it is... its amazing what people will believe to talk themselves out of believing they were created.......

I guess they haven't gone to Vegas lately and played the odds.... the odds of any of this falling into place and staying in balance is so astronomical its unreasonable to believe,
But some would rather believe the moon is made of cheese than to believe in God....

why are they so afraid of believing what makes perfect sense even to a child?

There are some serious problems with the logic of someone who thinks they are really an atheist.

Its always amazed me how we can be so intelligent in some ways and so void in others.

(2 Tim 3:7 KJV) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 21 2006, 12:34 AM) [snapback]243022[/snapback]</div>

But couldn't he? If he couldn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent. And isn't it somewhat impertinent to question his motives?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Apr 19 2006, 08:14 AM) [snapback]242069[/snapback]</div>

There are plenty of 1 cell and 20+ cell organisms found in the fossil record that Evo's claim are millions and billions of years old. Yet no transitional forms of 2-6, 6-19 celled organisms have been found but they are all parasites and require a higher form of life in order to survive. So the argument that the "progenitor isn't around" just don't fly. Darwin’s theory of evolution proposes that new species come about by a series of incremental changes. Without the proof of those changes in the fossil record Darwin himself said that his theory fails. One transitional fossil such as the often cited “Archeopteryx does nothing to distinguish between the two models because it could just as well be just another created species. Our experience of living species indicates that there is a vast variety of species on the planet filling just about every possible ecological niche.†Evo’s claim that the discovery of Archeopteryx shows that reptiles and birds were related “It does nothing of the sort, unless you assume that evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other. To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaption.†http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/transit.htm

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems...ssil-record.htm

As far as your statement on erosion it only takes one good rain storm to cause enough erosion to disturb the layers. My theory not something I read.


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Apr 19 2006, 06:20 AM) [snapback]242023[/snapback]</div>

Your right, some people do view religion as a means of control. But without the political/civil power behind them they are pretty much toothless. However, your statement sounds pretty much like a blanket statement and smears all as ruthless power mongers and that is certainly not true. Can you name another organization that has done more for the poor than the Christian Religion? Before you name some government such as the USA I would prefer organizations other than governmental as a basis of fair comparison. Besides if you do insist on naming a government, remember the head of that list would have to be the USA. A government founded by Christians i.e. "One Nation under God".

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 19 2006, 06:52 AM) [snapback]242034[/snapback]</div>

Your right on but what kind of loving God would punish an otherwise moral person that choose not to believe in Him into an eternally burning hell? OTOH what king of loving God would cast into eternal torment even the most egregious sinner such as Hilter, Saddam, Stalin or Pol Pot? That is why God destroys Hell by casting it into the Lake of Fire in the after a suitable period of punishment. I’m not saying that there will be no punishment or that there is no Hell just that the eternal torment and damnation preached by some is not in character with a loving God and is not found in the Bible except for a few verses taken out of context.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

Wildkow

p.s. I have another post that addresses these transitional fossil finds.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 21 2006, 01:34 AM) [snapback]243022[/snapback]</div>

I do believe in God and I never stated otherwise. I thought there was only one God, so if my God doesn't exist then yours doesn't either.
I will continue to pray for you and I hope you will see the light one day.

 

It is arrogant to believe that your view of God is right and to argue such.
This includes athiesm. The person who is "not wrong" is the agnostic. Who says, I don't know, and can never know, and hence don't really care.

Anyone who believes the literal writings of their preferred religious text is a nut. That includes islamic fanatics as well as Christian Fundamentalists.

Everyone else is just poking around in the dark, trying to feel better about the world and themselves.

Regarding the actual nitpicking about eveolution (which I couldn't bear reading pages ago):
Evolution has an infinite amount of information. we can never know down to every gene how and when every change took place. So the ID people just pick at spots that evolutionists have not studied yet.

Centuries ago:
religion rejected that the world was round... they were disproven.
They said they are large gaps in evolution history...much of which has been filled in.
They say there are gaps in this specific and that specific. They will probably eventually be filled.

Eventually the ID'ers will say their is gap in how gene 4cA on the 8th chromosome of the Shri Lankin staring frog evolved into gene 4cB, as they desperately continue to deny the basic underlying truth that man evolved from Apes.

The real question to me is why the louder someone's religion is, the more likely they are either wealthy or a war mongerer.

 

Now there's some name-calling.

So... if, let's say for the sake of argument, God does exist, and people who believe in Him don't inflexibly assert that He's real, that it matters. What kind of believer does that make such a person? You've just said I'm a nut because I believe in God and argue that he's the only true God.

That isn't arrogance. That's internal consistency. I'd be crazy to call myself a Christian and not to argue these points. You're just flame-baiting. You clearly can't be bothered to actually think about any of this, so you post a peevishly dismissive reply that basically pisses on everyone's beleifs.

Bringing up the past church as an argument against modern Christians is about as useful, and about as well-intentioned, as reminding white people today that our ancestors enslaved blacks. What does that have to do with anything? Do we need a church sort of racial guilt, then? Or maybe equal opportunity for non-Christians due to past Church sins against physics?!?

I'm a Christian who believes in God, and believes that God made the laws of physics. You can find embarrassing examples of people who believe in God but not in modern astrophysics, but they will be disclaimed by the majority of Christians, I'd bet, just like many Muslims scramble to disown the 9/11 terrorists.

And with that fine example, can we now drop the sensationalism and example-dropping? It isn't as though these examples actually apply to many of the people actually at hand here doing the discussing.

Hey, Windstrings! Is the earth still flat, or what?

 

Well, for some reason I can't quote dsunman's latest message to me (may have to do with the formatting, which has gotten mangled). Anyway, a pseudo-quote:

*I* don't have a problem. I pointed out that you insulted him, and you've spent two days trying to explain how it isn't an insult. It remains an insult, and you remain unable to admit a mistake.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Apr 20 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]243019[/snapback]</div>

Yep, it does seem uncharitable. But this is God we're talking about, and he gets to make the rules.

Predestination as a theory still remains the best concept to reconcile the soverignity of God with the attitudes we see among men. People seem hard wired to accept, or reject, religious thought.

If it helps, read the posts regarding a literal hell and a figurative hell. Many Christians today feel that the "red devil with horns and eternal fires of hell" are probably not true, and I've heard some state that they believe the unbelievers simply cease to exist (still others have a variation of that ... that the unbelievers are eternally alone and separated from God). None of them seem like good alternatives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 22 2006, 01:47 AM) [snapback]243564[/snapback]</div>

Let's see: non-existence or loneliness. And what's the other side have to offer. Please be specific. No basking in the glory of god, please.