Some Surprising Facts About Evolution

[TheOutsider]

No I said "prove" evolution. The frequency of alleles within a gene pool does not prove that we were not created.

This may come as a shock to you, but that is exactly what evolution is, the fact that genes change over time. The theory of evolution is a explanation of how and why this happens and what effects it causes. I know that a few here want to make it about religion, but there are many who have no problems rectifying the science and their faith. I used to be one myself.

 

[MoonLancer]

When you "prove" evolution come back and dare me.

All right then, What evidence would convince you that evolution happens? please let it not be the evidence that kent hovind asked for when he redefined what evolution was so no one could provide evidence for HIS false hood of evolution.

Oh, and the pearls before swine thing, The criticisms of that was dead on. The reason such a passage exists like that in the bible is so you never have to critically analyze your own views through peer review.

I am here to give you the truth what you do with it will one day be weighed in the balance. It is between you and your Creator.

and just how will you varify this truth? with the bible? what historical acaracy can you give me that will let know that its not just some writing of a nomadic desert people.... oh god write it, and he says everything in it is true? If this is the source you are using to bear truth to me, its all circular and self fulfilling.

 

[Inan3]

Like Gracchus said, you're getting frustrated and angry over someone pointing out flaws in the ideology, as though they were pointing out flaws in your own self.
You dismiss alternatives to your own beliefs completely out of hand without applying any critical thought. How exactly do you examine your own belief all the time?

I am also not angry or frustrated. I'm sorry wrong again. What you don't understand is just because you guys gang up on me or my ideology it doesn't bother me at all! You want me to apply scientifice applications to my beliefs but it doesn't work that way so it isn't about dismissing alternatives it's just telling you that when it comes to spiritual things you guys you are unable, incapable, to see it because you are not born again. It's as simple as that. I can't say it many more ways.

Another thing, the things that you guys give so much credibility to, I look at and say, I can't believe this is what they are convinced by. So much money and time is invested in all these tests and retests and to me most of it is a grevious waste of resouces. So why would I want to have any of your critical thoughts on my faith! It's not going to happen.

 

[Inan3]

All right then, What evidence would convince you that evolution happens? please let it not be the evidence that kent hovind asked for when he redefined what evolution was so no one could provide evidence for HIS false hood of evolution.

Oh, and the pearls before swine thing, The criticisms of that was dead on. The reason such a passage exists like that in the bible is so you never have to critically analyze your own views through peer review.

As I said you don't understand spiritual things. My peers would be those who understand spiritual things. It can't be approached scientifically.

 

[MoonLancer]

As I said you don't understand spiritual things. My peers would be those who understand spiritual things. It can't be approached scientifically.

Well that would explain why Creation is so far removed from science. They are not approaching it scientifically. They are not showing evidence. So do you think its right for creation to claim its science in such cases and use the back door of the education system to bypass peer review?

I am spiritual, so you must mean Christian.

So only Christians can understand Christianity? I must first be the thing I wish to understand? thats a very weak argument sir. If thats your case, Then Everyone who becomes Christians did so without understanding and truth. They became christian (well yec at least) out of ignorance.

So I ask again, because you avoided the question. What evidence do you require to prove evolution, because you asked for the evidence i would be happy to give it to you. But if you cannot tell us what evidence would persuade you, your revealing that you never wanted evidence in the first place and that this is a farce and you clearly are not interested in facts or truth, and simply giving yourself a nice theological masturbation.

also while your at it, could you tell me what could falsify creation? in good faith, I shale reveal to you what could falsify evolution.

• a static fossil record;
• true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
• a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
• observations of organisms being created.

If you cant refute the following, then evolution is here to stay.

 

[Skaloop]

So much money and time is invested in all these tests and retests and to me most of it is a grevious waste of resouces.

In this materialistic age, do you think people/corporations would be giving money to studies that were fruitless? No, money goes into the study of evolution (amongst other sciences) because it works. It produces results, it produces profitable results, and it brings in money. If it were wrong, the money would disappear. Nobody pays for studies into alchemy, because it doesn't work. Evolution does.

 

[Inan3]

In this materialistic age, do you think people/corporations would be giving money to studies that were fruitless? No, money goes into the study of evolution (amongst other sciences) because it works. It produces results, it produces profitable results, and it brings in money. If it were wrong, the money would disappear. Nobody pays for studies into alchemy, because it doesn't work. Evolution does.

Did you ever hear of tax write offs? I know it is very politically correct to support all these issues but there is so much money wasted. If you don't know that then you are living in a vacuum. And let's make this clear before I get a bunch of complaints, I do NOT, I said NOT, think ALL money that goes into science is a waste of resources. So don't go twisting my words to get that interpretation out of it.

 

[Skaloop]

Did you ever hear of tax write offs? I know it is very politically correct to support all these issues but there is so much money wasted. If you don't know that then you are living in a vacuum. And let's make this clear before I get a bunch of complaints, I do NOT, I said NOT, think ALL money that goes into science is a waste of resources. So don't go twisting my words to get that interpretation out of it.

Well, of course when there's a bureaucracy in place for anything, there will be some waste. But that's not really a fault of science, and it's not unique to science. There's plenty of waste within the Church as well.

 

[Inan3]

Well that would explain why Creation is so far removed from science. They are not approaching it scientifically. They are not showing evidence. So do you think its right for creation to claim its science in such cases and use the back door of the education system to bypass peer review?

I wouldn't choose those words because it's not exactly what I beleive so let me say it this way. I do not think understanding the scriptures should be approached scientifically. I also, don't believe that Christianity should be taught in the schools if no other religion is taught but I do believe evolution has evolved into a religion when they teach we evolved therefore there is no room for God or His creation. The line is then crossed and I believe that creation should have an equal voice in the school system. Please do not tell me that it is never taught this way because it has and is, whether or not you have heard it does not mean it has not happened. Individual teachers and professors both have taught these things and the education system has backed them up. And now, that people have finally had enough and begun to speak up it has become a "terrible thing" to all of you who believe otherwise, now, you think you are the persecuted! Well, it's been happening for years to Christianity and is still happening today. I guess it's thought that it's okay to oppress and suppress the truth forever and we should just lie down and take it. I'm sorry it isn't going to happen! That's why America was started in the first place. Oppression and suppression of religious freedom. Oh, and separation of church and state was not to keep God out of the state but to keep the state out of the church!

I am spiritual, so you must mean Christian.

I know that all men are spiritual but not all are born again and once again in communion with the one true God their Creator. I don't care if you call yourself Christian, spiritual or any other thing, IF you are not born of the spirit you will not understand spiritual things and you'll get it all screwed up! Like it's been happening since the beginning of time. God gave the scriptures as the manual for mankind. The Bible is His design. He has preserved its integrity down through the years. He has made sure that it is available to all nations and races, in every language and it WILL be preached in all the World for a witness of His love and great salvation. No man is or will be without excuse for denying Him and His grace to us all. I suggest don't let you intellect overrule you heart. Just believe!

So only Christians can understand Christianity? I must first be the thing I wish to understand? thats a very weak argument sir. If thats your case, Then Everyone who becomes Christians did so without understanding and truth. They became christian (well yec at least) out of ignorance.

Here you lost me. Not sure what you are saying.

So I ask again, because you avoided the question. What evidence do you require to prove evolution, because you asked for the evidence i would be happy to give it to you. But if you cannot tell us what evidence would persuade you, your revealing that you never wanted evidence in the first place and that this is a farce and you clearly are not interested in facts or truth, and simply giving yourself a nice theological masturbation.

I never ignored you or the others that asked that question. Here is my answer again.

The scriptures are not to be approached scientifically, which means to me, that the way in which you acquire evidence in the natural CANNOT be applied in the spiritual. The spiritual evidences are at times manifested naturally, BUT they are also, manifest inwardly aslo, and because these cannot be seen by your eyes you choose to disqualify them as evidence. So NO, I cannot give you evidence, not because it is not viable or credible, but because YOU will not accept, except it be by your measurements. The only evidence that is "required" spiritually is faith.

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith IS substance and evidence in the spiritual world.

Faith can actually change the natural world.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God

Words are spirit.

Words can be life or death.

God is a Word Being.

God is Spirit - God is Life - God is Light - God is Love

By your words you shall be justified and by your words you shall be condemned.

That's faith. You can have faith in God, in Truth, in Life or you can have faith in death. It's your choice.

This is the evidence you need to believe in God. Nothing else, because.

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

You want to see before you believe. God requires you believe before you see.

also while your at it, could you tell me what could falsify creation? in good faith, I shale reveal to you what could falsify evolution.

• a static fossil record;
• true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
• a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
• observations of organisms being created.

If you cant refute the following, then evolution is here to stay.

I think my anwser above covers this. I do appreciate what you have shared because I do think that you want me to understand these things but it is not that I do not believe that some things have evolved, it is the discrediting of the scriptural account of creation that is assumed because of some things discovered that I have a problem with. Because people do not understand the scriptures they assume it is in error and if they choose not to believe in God how then, would they give any credibility to the scriptures? They won't, so they aggressively pursue trying to falsify the scripture, by showing evidence, and insinuating that that is proof that creation is false. When in fact it is only an assumption that it proves we have evolved. It is obvious that this is the case because they say, it's the best answer have for proof that we have evolved. I say that is their opinion and not good enough for me. It would take just as much faith to believe that as it does to believe in God and I say the benefits are far more reaching. I have nothing to lose and all to gain but those who won't believe have what to gain?


I'm sorry if there are any errors here but I don't have time to fix them now.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not think understanding the scriptures should be approached scientifically.

We aren't talking about scriptures. We are talking about the natural world. More specifically, we are talking about how long the Earth has been around, the geologic history of the natural Earth, and the relationships between naturally occuring organisms. You have not shown how scriptures should even be considered when looking at the natural world.

I also, don't believe that Christianity should be taught in the schools if no other religion is taught but I do believe evolution has evolved into a religion when they teach we evolved therefore there is no room for God or His creation.

This canard has been beat to death. Scientific theories are not religions. I also find it strange that you use the word "religion" to denigrate other people's ideas. Religions are based on a belief in a deity. Evolution does not mention any deities, either in the positive or the negative.

Also, why don't you have a problem with every other scientific theory that also gives no room for the actions of a supernatural deity? If you think the theory of evolution is somehow special in this regard, perhaps you can list for us the scientific theories which include God as a necessary component.

The line is then crossed and I believe that creation should have an equal voice in the school system.

How can a belief that is contradicted by evidence have an equal voice in a science class with a scientific theory supported by mountains of scientific evidence? How does this work? Which scientists are using creationism as a basis for original research? Which scientists are using creationism to find the cause of genetic diseases (note: scientists use comparative genomics which uses common ancestry and the theory of evolution)?

Please do not tell me that it is never taught this way because it has and is, whether or not you have heard it does not mean it has not happened. Individual teachers and professors both have taught these things and the education system has backed them up.

Cry me a river. A vast majority of people in America are christians. I find it pitiful when the majority feigns persecution.

I guess it's thought that it's okay to oppress and suppress the truth forever and we should just lie down and take it.

That's what Galileo told the Pope.

Oh, and separation of church and state was not to keep God out of the state but to keep the state out of the church!

You are wrong. The Establishment Clause was meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion. It's purpose was to keep religion out of government while allowing the governed to worship who they may.

IF you are not born of the spirit you will not understand spiritual things and you'll get it all screwed up!

If the spiritual is a figment of your imagination then you have it all screwed up. So how do we determine that the spiritual exists other than just believing?

God gave the scriptures as the manual for mankind. The Bible is His design. He has preserved its integrity down through the years.

I'm pretty sure it was humans who wrote the Bible and humans who preserved it.

I suggest don't let you intellect overrule you heart. Just believe!

Was that God's intention? Be dumb and you might believe in me? I don't think this is a stance you want to take.

The scriptures are not to be approached scientifically, which means to me, that the way in which you acquire evidence in the natural CANNOT be applied in the spiritual.

But it does apply to the natural. The Earth is natural. Life is natural.

So NO, I cannot give you evidence, not because it is not viable or credible, but because YOU will not accept, except it be by your measurements. The only evidence that is "required" spiritually is faith.

What evidence would you accept in support of evolution?

I think my anwser above covers this. I do appreciate what you have shared because I do think that you want me to understand these things but it is not that I do not believe that some things have evolved, it is the discrediting of the scriptural account of creation that is assumed because of some things discovered that I have a problem with.

10,000 christian clergy would disagree.

Because people do not understand the scriptures they assume it is in error and if they choose not to believe in God how then, would they give any credibility to the scriptures?

It would seem to me that if you can not accept the way that the Creation was made that you are rejecting the Creator. Why should I lend scriptures any credibility when they are contradicted by the very creation that they are supposed to explain?

They won't, so they aggressively pursue trying to falsify the scripture, by showing evidence, and insinuating that that is proof that creation is false. When in fact it is only an assumption that it proves we have evolved.

It is not an assumption that the speed of light is constant and that we can see galaxies 10 billion light years away. These are facts. It is also a fact that evolution is supported by a lot of evidence. It is also a fact that there is no evidence of a recent global flood. It is also a fact that every reasonable measurement of the Earth demonstrates that it is billions of years old. So why should I lend scriptures any credibility when they state that the Universe is only thousands of years old, that organisms magically poofed into being a few thousand years ago, and that there was a recent flood that nearly destroyed all life and covered the entire Earth in water?

It is obvious that this is the case because they say, it's the best answer have for proof that we have evolved. I say that is their opinion and not good enough for me. It would take just as much faith to believe that as it does to believe in God and I say the benefits are far more reaching. I have nothing to lose and all to gain but those who won't believe have what to gain?

Creationism is perhaps the best reason not to be a christian. It would be a lot easier to be an atheist if all christians were creationists. Luckily for you, there are reasonable christians who do not see a conflict between the findings of science and scripture.

 

[Inan3]

We aren't talking about scriptures. We are talking about the natural world. More specifically, we are talking about how long the Earth has been around, the geologic history of the natural Earth, and the relationships between naturally occuring organisms. You have not shown how scriptures should even be considered when looking at the natural world.

Well, YOU might not have been talking about the scriptures but my quote that you are supposedly debating was posted in reference to creation and creation is in the scriptures. If you are going to interject you points it would help if you follow along instead of running off at the mouth. Make your points and if I have the time I will answer you. Now that's not too hard is it?

As to your above reference, I thought you weren't talking about the scriptures. Now, what is it? Am I supposed to show how scriptures should be considered when looking at the natural world or not?

This canard has been beat to death. Scientific theories are not religions. I also find it strange that you use the word "religion" to denigrate other people's ideas. Religions are based on a belief in a deity. Evolution does not mention any deities, either in the positive or the negative.

The science of evolution does not, but the people on this forum and thousands more do, and therefore, many believe including me, that evolution has been extended to a religious state, evolutionism. I use the word religion to prove a point.

"Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

The scripture says,
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

Ta Da the religion of evolutionism NOT to be confused with the science of evolution.

Also, why don't you have a problem with every other scientific theory that also gives no room for the actions of a supernatural deity? If you think the theory of evolution is somehow special in this regard, perhaps you can list for us the scientific theories which include God as a necessary component.

That comes under the religion of evolutionism

How can a belief that is contradicted by evidence have an equal voice in a science class with a scientific theory supported by mountains of scientific evidence? How does this work? Which scientists are using creationism as a basis for original research? Which scientists are using creationism to find the cause of genetic diseases (note: scientists use comparative genomics which uses common ancestry and the theory of evolution)?

Go back and READ this time WHAT I said not what you are purporting that I said. This is how error is perpetrated.

You are wrong. The Establishment Clause was meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion. It's purpose was to keep religion out of government while allowing the governed to worship who they may.

Its purpose was to keep the government out of religion and thus, preventing the establishment of a state govenment.

If the spiritual is a figment of your imagination then you have it all screwed up. So how do we determine that the spiritual exists other than just believing?

You ask God to show you. That's how we all find out.

I'm pretty sure it was humans who wrote the Bible and humans who preserved it.

God always uses humans.

Was that God's intention? Be dumb and you might believe in me? I don't think this is a stance you want to take.

It's not!

But it does apply to the natural. The Earth is natural. Life is natural.

We agree.

What evidence would you accept in support of evolution?

Again, I ACCEPT EVOLUTION, I think you mean what evidence would I accept in support of evolutionism. The answer is there is none.

10,000 christian clergy would disagree.

It would seem to me that if you can not accept the way that the Creation was made that you are rejecting the Creator. Why should I lend scriptures any credibility when they are contradicted by the very creation that they are supposed to explain?

Evolutionism!

It is not an assumption that the speed of light is constant and that we can see galaxies 10 billion light years away. These are facts. It is also a fact that evolution is supported by a lot of evidence. It is also a fact that there is no evidence of a recent global flood. It is also a fact that every reasonable measurement of the Earth demonstrates that it is billions of years old. So why should I lend scriptures any credibility when they state that the Universe is only thousands of years old, that organisms magically poofed into being a few thousand years ago, and that there was a recent flood that nearly destroyed all life and covered the entire Earth in water?

Chapter and verse please? (except for the flood I know about the flood)

Creationism is perhaps the best reason not to be a christian. It would be a lot easier to be an atheist if all christians were creationists. Luckily for you, there are reasonable christians who do not see a conflict between the findings of science and scripture.

????

 

[MoonLancer]

Loudmouth coverd many of the responces i was going to give.

show me clearly and concisely how evolution is religus. At most you could say scientists are peeved that creationists are using the wedge document to insert itself as science (bypassing peer review). If this never happened, you can bet science wouldn't have a problem with creationism.

evolutionism is a word creationists use to slander evolution then they jump up and down saying look look its a religion!!! its an ism!!!! Why do creationists like to make evolution seem like a religion (and some how a bad ting?).

So I will ask for the third time, because you didn't answer directly. Is it right for creation to pose as science and bypass peer review by using the wedge document? yes or no. reasonings welcome welcome.

What evidence would be needed for you to accept evolution as fact. I have shown how evolution can be proven wrong. Show me how creation can be proven wrong.

 

[Gracchus]

Well it looks like you have failed the "tested methods of conflict resolution" because you didn't get me right at all.

Before those methods can be used there must be an agreement that they will be used. You don't start with the assumption that you understand the other fellow. He states a position. You restate his position, as you understand it. He corrects you until he is sure you understand his position.

And with all that philosophical jargon you'd have thought you would have gotten something right.

Philosophical jargon?! I used parable and metaphor precisely because jargon is easily understood only by those in the trade.

I understand that I am not going to change your mind about any thing. I know little about nano-technology. I accept that your position is based upon emotional rather than rational foundations. The fact is that you refuse to expose those foundations, you fear to expose your "pearls" to examination.

 

[MoonLancer]

I know that all men are spiritual but not all are born again and once again in communion with the one true God their Creator. I don't care if you call yourself Christian, spiritual or any other thing, IF you are not born of the spirit you will not understand spiritual things and you'll get it all screwed up!

So am I spiritual or not? I hear buddhist monks are pretty spiritual, and they are definitely not born again, at least no the way you mean it.

Like it's been happening since the beginning of time. God gave the scriptures as the manual for mankind. The Bible is His design.

so why does it have so many contradictions?

He has preserved its integrity down through the years.

if thats so, their would be only ONE bible. But theirs so many versions. this lends it self to men preserving it, not god.

He has made sure that it is available to all nations and races

Like the native Americans before Columbus? If people (not god) made all the books available to everyone of all nations how would history have transpired? how would it be different from today?

in every language

what about remote tribes? It was people over a slow period of time. If people (not god) made all the books available in every language, how would history have transpired? how would it be different from today?

and it WILL be preached in all the World for a witness of His love and great salvation.

like how he killed his sun to make some kind of point? why didn't he save the druids? If god created nature (as you say), and druids loved nature, Then they must have loved god. so why would Christians have killed the druids? I know why.

No man is or will be without excuse for denying Him and His grace to us all. I suggest don't let you intellect overrule you heart. Just believe!

What if my heart says diffrently? are you to tell me what my heart says? My heart says, why was Hypatias skin ripped from her body by a main who was later sainted for it? My heart says, Why did Christians destroy other peoples religions to gain a foot hold Ireland? Your progenitors are bathed in blood, and it still reeks. lets not forget the Salim witch trials. When one knows his history, its hard to look at Christians and see them as what you must see them as.

*"dear god, why do all your follows who claim to be morally superior end up being the scum at the bottom of the bucket?"*

* in recorded history

 

[Inan3]

So am I spiritual or not? I hear buddhist monks are pretty spiritual, and they are definitely not born again, at least no the way you mean it.

so why does it have so many contradictions?
if thats so, their would be only ONE bible. But theirs so many versions. this lends it self to men preserving it, not god.

Like the native Americans before Columbus? If people (not god) made all the books available to everyone of all nations how would history have transpired? how would it be different from today?
what about remote tribes? It was people over a slow period of time. If people (not god) made all the books available in every language, how would history have transpired? how would it be different from today?

like how he killed his sun to make some kind of point? why didn't he save the druids? If god created nature (as you say), and druids loved nature, Then they must have loved god. so why would Christians have killed the druids? I know why.

What if my heart says diffrently? are you to tell me what my heart says? My heart says, why was Hypatias skin ripped from her body by a main who was later sainted for it? My heart says, Why did Christians destroy other peoples religions to gain a foot hold Ireland? Your progenitors are bathed in blood, and it still reeks. lets not forget the Salim witch trials. When one knows his history, its hard to look at Christians and see them as what you must see them as.

*"dear god, why do all your follows who claim to be morally superior end up being the scum at the bottom of the bucket?"*

* in recorded history

I don't believe these were true Christians but I'm not going there with you. I have gone over it all, again and again. Someone new comes onto this thread and I have to do it again. It's the same issues over and over. The same arguements. Straight out of the atheists manual. You don't have to believe if you don't want to that's up to you. I chose to believe at one time inspite of all these situations. I am not going round and round with you over these things. I did not do these things. God didn't do these things. There have also been many scientists responsible for hundreds of thousands dying but that doesn't seem to keep you from siding with them. There have been atheists responisble for causing human suffering and slaughtering many but that doesn't keep you from being an atheist. So give it a rest. In the end, you will have no one to blame but yourself when you come before God. We all stand alone on that day.

 

[ReverendDG]

I don't believe these were true Christians but I'm not going there with you. I have gone over it all, again and again. Someone new comes onto this thread and I have to do it again. It's the same issues over and over. The same arguements. Straight out of the atheists manual. You don't have to believe if you don't want to that's up to you. I chose to believe at one time inspite of all these situations. I am not going round and round with you over these things. I did not do these things. God didn't do these things. There have also been many scientists responsible for hundreds of thousands dying but that doesn't seem to keep you from siding with them. There have been atheists responisble for causing human suffering and slaughtering many but that doesn't keep you from being an atheist. So give it a rest. In the end, you will have no one to blame but yourself when you come before God. We all stand alone on that day.

Ok just to explain something to you, there no such thing as a atheist bible or church or anything, we don't claim any tenants like christians do, so your comparison is invald.

christians do! at least they claim to share the same beliefs about their god.

IMO if you didn't keep spouting sactomonious statements like the junk that moonlancer replied to you might not have so much of a problem

 

[Inan3]

Before those methods can be used there must be an agreement that they will be used. You don't start with the assumption that you understand the other fellow. He states a position. You restate his position, as you understand it. He corrects you until he is sure you understand his position.

Philosophical jargon?! I used parable and metaphor precisely because jargon is easily understood only by those in the trade.

I understand that I am not going to change your mind about any thing. I know little about nano-technology. I accept that your position is based upon emotional rather than rational foundations. The fact is that you refuse to expose those foundations, you fear to expose your "pearls" to examination.

No the fact is that I have stated my position over and over again. If you want to know my position check out my many other posts. I don't mean to slight you but it gets old after after awhile, telling it again and again. Sorry about the "philosophical jargon" comment and I do appreciate your effort and choice to use a different approach. It also get very tiring hearing the same arguments over and over.

It is a bit unfair, though, that you would suggest that I base my position upon emotions and that it is a "fact" that I "fear" to expose my pearls to examinaton. It seems to me that this contradicts your statement above, "You don't start with the assumption that you understand the other fellow." It seems like everyone else here, you expect from others what you do not give. Another thing I have seen over and over again. Right out of the A/E Manual.

 

[Inan3]

Ok just to explain something to you, there no such thing as a atheist bible or church or anything, we don't claim any tenants like christians do, so your comparison is invald.

christians do! at least they claim to share the same beliefs about their god.

IMO if you didn't keep spouting sactomonious statements like the junk that moonlancer replied to you might not have so much of a problem

Well Rev, If you had read my many posts, which you obviously have not, you would know that this is my personal joke about the A/E Manual. I already know that, but I guess you felt it necessary to point that out to me.

Secondly, What I had to say to Moonlancer was not meant to be sanctimonious in anyway. How you judge it is your interpretaion.

One question though, are you a Deist or and Atheist?

 

[FishFace]

I am also not angry or frustrated. I'm sorry wrong again. What you don't understand is just because you guys gang up on me or my ideology it doesn't bother me at all! You want me to apply scientifice applications to my beliefs but it doesn't work that way so it isn't about dismissing alternatives it's just telling you that when it comes to spiritual things you guys you are unable, incapable, to see it because you are not born again. It's as simple as that. I can't say it many more ways.

And you are incapable of seeing the evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because you've not been touched by his noodly appendage. Evidence doesn't work like this, it's either there or it isn't.

 

[FishFace]

So you have proven the scriptures to be true...

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

And for what?

You didn't give me any pearls; how could I trample them?

I told you what I accept as evidence. I showed you how what you think is evidence doesn't fit the criteria, since I've experienced it, and now realise it was purely subjective - although a real enough feeling at the time.

I also dealt with the atrocity that is Pascal's Wager.