Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[TLK Valentine]

Do you find it ironic that you have to pretend He exists to make your peanut-gallery comments?

Not at all -- just one of many concessions I must make in order to communicate with you.

I put [today's] science down big-time; and I don't have to pretend anything to do it.

Not true -- you have to pretend to know about it, you have to pretend to care, you have to pretend that you're trying to accomplish something meaningful, you have to pretend that you're debating from an honest position, you have to pretend to have a point...

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I suspect he has more to pay than collect. He can collect for one really bad day. But he is, if we are to believe Christians, responsible for billions of hours of human misery and despair. Of course, I don't believe Christians.

Well, there was that one parable in Luke.

When you say 'one really bad day', you're obviously referring to the particular dark one (according to Thales), is that right? I know there is the part where he cries out, 'MY GOD, MY GOD, why have you forsaken me?' but if we are to factor in his determination to go and be crucified in Jerusalem -- to complete as it were his mission here, namely to die for our sins. As well as, the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit in the teachings of St. Paul about how we may be justified and walk even as Jesus walked (something perhaps a lot more focused than adhering to the idea of 'Love mercy, walk humbly' -- something where we die in this life, without dying physically to our selfishness, but more so to dark and savage natures which seem to have become our lot due to Evolution -- through not only Jesus death, but his resurrection -- where we are risen with him into newness of life?)

As far as I have been able to determine, existentialism is just fuzzy semantics by sloppy thinkers. And also, as far as I can determine from the gospels, Jesus was crucified because he told people what the rich, the powerful and the self-righteous (almost everyone, then and now) didn't want them to hear. Some of it may even have been true.

Oops, I was too hasty with my question. What I wanted to respond to was your repeat quote regarding the things Christians should be doing. i.e. 'Love mercy, walk humbly etc.' Whatever that amounts to as being compared with the things that Jesus taught, did and later embellished upon through the ministry of the Holy Spirit as to what it is that Christians aught to really be all about. Perhaps I aught to have found a word to describe that, one seems to allude me now.
If anything, I think the Beatitudes -- the Sermon on the Mount, gives far more insight into the sort of things that Jesus expected from people. One might go further to explore that whatever is meant by dying to self and living to God, there is very powerful inner work which needs to be accomplished in the heart of a true believer (as opposed to someone who just wears a moral badge of being nice, doing good etc.) In the end, it seems that Jesus did/does not just want us turn over a new leaf, but to start a whole new life -- his life in us. (C..S Lewis -- as I have pointed out before, covers this well in the last two chapters of 'Mere Christianity')

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Physician, heal thyself.

In war times, some conscientious objectors have preferred to take the role of Medics or be imprisoned -- even some of the early Christians would rather die than disobey the Spirit of Jesus. I cannot fully explain this, though there are good arguments for both sides -- my heart tells me (and that since I was in my late teens) that it is not a path that I should follow.

 

[dad]

In war times, some conscientious objectors have preferred to take the role of Medics or be imprisoned -- even some of the early Christians would rather die than disobey the Spirit of Jesus. I cannot fully explain this, though there are good arguments for both sides -- my heart tells me (and that since I was in my late teens) that it is not a path that I should follow.

To think that God supported the hell fire of drone terrorism and bombing cities etc would be to have to tell a child that lost a leg and arm and both parents that God sent the military to do it I would think.

Yes God will set a wicked nation onto another wicked nation to get a result. Like scorpions fighting, that doesn't mean we are to be scorpions. I have a bone to pick with radio preachers and religious folks who preach otherwise.

 

[crjmurray]

To think that God supported the hell fire of drone terrorism and bombing cities etc would be to have to tell a child that lost a leg and arm and both parents that God sent the military to do it I would think.

Yes God will set a wicked nation onto another wicked nation to get a result. Like scorpions fighting, that doesn't mean we are to be scorpions. I have a bone to pick with radio preachers and religious folks who preach otherwise.

Yeah it sucks when people try to speak for God.

 

[Davian]

A fool's errand, Davian.

It is not *my* errand.

There aren't any goal posts, when it comes to this. Unless you are talking about Jesus. Are you talking about Jesus?

On the subject of gods, it is up to the religionist to define what they are talking about. i would think it quite odd not to be able to define what I believe in.

Don't you remember the little chat you were having with AV about Wonder Woman? It did come across as being a tad on the slanderous side, no? : here

You alluded to some sort of "danger". Spit it out, already.

I am no expert in law, but there is nothing slanderous in that post.

If you meant libellous, it is my understanding that one cannot libel the dead, or the fictitious. If it is your assertion that the... "person" in question is not dead, or fictitious, I do believe you have an errand to attend to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah it sucks when people try to speak for God.

Then let God speak for Himself.

Such as He did with Genesis 1.

The ...

Genesis 3:1b Yea, hath God said, ...

... mantra from the academic elite gets old after awhile.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

you have to pretend to know about it

The scientific method is a joke.

Science is way over my head.

To a person like me, just about anything a site like Wikipedia says sounds plausible, since I'm not science savvy.

I'd believe almost anything they said in the area of science.

(in your own words) Please explain why you think that the scientific method is a joke?

The scientific method is myopic.

I wouldn't know.

All that stuff is over my head.

----
I'd be the first to admit that studying science and in particular evolution, gets more and more difficult as one moves along. i.e. Read chapter one THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH by Prof. Richard Dawkins (a book written to explain the evidence which relates to Evolution -- without his usual jabs at religion), and it's fairly basic stuff -- but move forward to the last chapter (without reading what's in between them) and suddenly (well that's me) I'm drowning in unfamiliar terminology and plenty of real science.
In some sense, it's almost expected that if one is going to be on this forum (there should be some criteria set, which can weed out those who are only here to argue Creation, or Evolution) one aught to make the effort to know both myths.

 

[crjmurray]

It is not *my* errand.

On the subject of gods, it is up to the religionist to define what they are talking about. i would think it quite odd not to be able to define what I believe in.


You alluded to some sort of "danger". Spit it out, already.

I am no expert in law, but there is nothing slanderous in that post.

If you meant libellous, it is my understanding that one cannot libel the dead, or the fictitious. If it is your assertion that the... "person" in question is not dead, or fictitious, I do believe you have an errand to attend to.

Of course you can libel the dead. As long as it has some measurable effect on the deceased persons reputation. So it would be up to Lewis to prove that. Then it's Davians turn to prove that the libel was 1 true and 2 that what Davian said had some benefit to society.. I demand a new formal debate thread for libel accusations. It'd be hilarious.

 

[crjmurray]

The scientific method is a joke.

Science is way over my head.

To a person like me, just about anything a site like Wikipedia says sounds plausible, since I'm not science savvy.

I'd believe almost anything they said in the area of science.

(in your own words) Please explain why you think that the scientific method is a joke?

The scientific method is myopic.

I wouldn't know.

All that stuff is over my head.

----
I'd be the first to admit that studying science and in particular evolution, gets more and more difficult as one moves along. i.e. Read chapter one THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH by Prof. Richard Dawkins (a book written to explain the evidence which relates to Evolution -- without his usual jabs at religion), and it's fairly basic stuff -- but move forward to the last chapter (without reading what's in between them) and suddenly (well that's me) I'm drowning in unfamiliar terminology and plenty of real science.
In some sense, it's almost expected that if one is going to be on this forum (there should be some criteria set, which can weed out those who are only here to argue Creation, or Evolution) one aught to make the effort to know both myths.

Indeedydo Lewis

 

[AV1611VET]

In some sense, it's almost expected that if one is going to be on this forum (there should be some criteria set, which can weed out those who are only here to argue Creation) one aught to make the effort to know both myths.

"Myths" aside, I don't need to study evolution if I already believe in evolution's antithesis: instant creation.

If I believe the Flood was global, for example.

Why would I need to study a local Flood perspective (beyond "chapter one", that is)?

I believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

So should I go study the impossibility of survival in a whale's belly for three days?

I also believe Jonah died in the whale's belly.

So should I go study the impossibility of coming back from the dead?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It is not *my* errand.

A common New Atheist, rookie errand.

On the subject of gods, it is up to the religionist to define what they are talking about. i would think it quite odd not to be able to define what I believe in.

There is nothing to explain, which has not already been explained.

You alluded to some sort of "danger". Spit it out, already.

Are you reliving the past. We've covered this already.

I am no expert in law, but there is nothing slanderous in that post.

If slander bordering on blasphemy is brushed away by your in-expertise, then I suggest you get a proper lawyer.

If you meant libellous, it is my understanding that one cannot libel the dead, or the fictitious. If it is your assertion that the... "person" in question is not dead, or fictitious, I do believe you have an errand to attend to.

If that is how you appease your conscience, then so be it.

Goodbye.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"Myths" aside, I don't need to study evolution if I already believe in evolution's antithesis: instant creation.

If I believe the Flood was global, for example.

Why would I need to study a local Flood perspective (beyond "chapter one", that is)?

To see if your beliefs are based on fact.

I believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

So should I go study the impossibility of survival in a whale's belly for three days?

it may not change your mind, but you may learn something.

I also believe Jonah died in the whale's belly.

So should I go study the impossibility of coming back from the dead?

Again, assuming you're not afraid to learn things, what could the harm be?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

"Myths" aside, I don't need to study evolution if I already believe in evolution's antithesis: instant creation.

You most certainly do. i.e. If you decided to go and live in a country, where they spoke a language you could not -- would it not be both polite and extremely practical to learn that language? Of course it would. Learning correct terminology of both Creation and Evolution, is an absolute necessity -- that is if you wish to be taken seriously. It will also aid you to engage more aggressively (a good thing I am told ) in discussion, argument and debate here -- and who knows maybe your saltiness will then be more tasty.

If I believe the Flood was global, for example.

Why would I need to study a local Flood perspective (beyond "chapter one", that is)?

I believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

So should I go study the impossibility of survival in a whale's belly for three days?

I also believe Jonah died in the whale's belly.

So should I go study the impossibility of coming back from the dead?

Yes to all the above. It is important to explore one's beliefs, without the fear that someone will attempt to retire your faith in God. I still believe in the Lord, though I am studying hard as I can to understand this strange thing which I was told by my fellow Christians has invented by that devil "Charles Darwin" to lead people away from Christ. It's not true. I am learning, but I am not burning? I see some people are burning, but it is there own doing not mine.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Of course you can libel the dead. As long as it has some measurable effect on the deceased persons reputation. So it would be up to Lewis to prove that. Then it's Davians turn to prove that the libel was 1 true and 2 that what Davian said had some benefit to society.. I demand a new formal debate thread for libel accusations. It'd be hilarious.

I have not called it libel, only a gentle warning because I am more concerned with the inaccuracies than I am with the slander bordering on blasphemy.
As you note, my simple question about the difference between Wonder Woman and the God of the Bible -- is not as serious as the one which I am considering at the moment. Namely the matter of heresy (whether before as a Christian) which has turned a heart to repeatedly take cheap shots at the God of the Bible. Either one is here with respect, to engage in discussion, argument and debate -- or one is here to play court Jester. I know the Joker laughs at all of us, but it's just silly to mock another persons beliefs. I know Christians (YEC) mock and deride Scientists (not all are) here for having great confidence about a scientific theory, and that is BAD, BAD, BAD but I don't see why we (I am not yet a proper scientists -- only a baby biologist in training) should give back the same -- and not turn the other cheek, by showing that we know what we are talking about. Hmm?

 

[JacksBratt]

No argument there -- leaders have always tricked the devout and gullible to serve their own ends. It's the same in every religion.



Who declared the "Culture War"? Who fired the first shot in the "War on Terror"? The "War on Drugs"?

"War" exists independent of some self-appointed or elected stooge signing an official proclamation.



Agreed, which is why I say that simply killing people is not the point of a suicide bombing -- it's a means to an end.

The goal, as in any war, is a political one: The bombers (or more specifically, the people behind the bombers) are sending a message:

We can get you anywhere.

No place is safe from us.

The people you trust to protect you... can't.


It doesn't matter who, where, or how many get caught in the blast -- although bigger is better -- so long as they get their message across. So whether this person dies, or that one, or those people... is incidental.



Obviously I would have a much deeper personal stake in it -- just as a solder in a war would watching his friends and comrades get killed by the enemy in a battle.

That clouds the truth, but doesn't make it go away -- war is a political action with a political goal.



Don't confuse "desperate" with "insane." When you dismiss your enemy, you underestimate him.

They're sane enough to know they can't win a fair fight -- so they don't fight fair. That gimmick is as old as war itself:

If the rules say you're going to lose, then lose the rules.



Evil incarnate, eh? So what acts are you ready to justify in order to stop them?

Well, there you have it. If I was a soldier in a war.... I would never consider myself to be a martyr if I was killed. Whether on the offensive or the defensive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Learning correct terminology of both Creation and Evolution, is an absolute necessity -- that is if you wish to be taken seriously.

You mean like AIG, DI, ICR, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are taken seriously?

These guys know a lot more than I do, and they are considered anathema among the intellectuals here.

No thanks.

I'm not going to go out and learn to talk like you guys, just so I can have the added ridicule of turning my back on something I've been taught as "true."

Even agreeing with you guys can engender ridicule and false accusations.

Such as the case with those who try so hard to get me to admit I'm a YEC, so I'll stop agreeing with them that I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

It's not what we say that you guys don't like.

It's what we are.

 

[crjmurray]

You mean like AIG, DI, ICR, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are taken seriously?

These guys know a lot more than I do, and they are considered anathema among the intellectuals here.

No thanks.

I'm not going to go out and learn to talk like you guys, just so I can have the added ridicule of turning my back on something I've been taught as "true."

Even agreeing with you guys can engender ridicule and false accusations.

Such as the case with those who try so hard to get me to admit I'm a YEC, so I'll stop agreeing with them that I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

It's not what we say that you guys don't like.

It's what we are.

AIG and the rest of your examples are generally mocked BECAUSE they know more than you do. And then they say things that they are very aware are not true.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, there you have it. If I was a soldier in a war.... I would never consider myself to be a martyr if I was killed. Whether on the offensive or the defensive.

Well, that's you. But you're not fighting in this war.

 

[dad]

Yeah it sucks when people try to speak for God.

Especially when they are antiChrist killing terrorists.