I must admit that I once felt rather antagonistic 2ward organized religion, particularly in the several years after I quit going 2 church, about 33 years ago.

But these days, I try 2 give all of us a little credit for being down here trying 2 do our level best 2 figure our $h!+ out - we just go about it pretty differently.

I'm not anti-religion, but I don't believe in religion.

Oh, and medc: You can be moral without being religious. You can also be spiri2al without being religious (like yours truly).

-ol' 2long

A "hypocrite"? Ooooooooo......scary.

If I wanted to use that label, I could've done so many posts ago.

Why do you assume that I am goading him into conflict? He's not exactly agreeing with me, either. We are going back and forth. Nobody is goading or being goaded.


"Don't talk to him, FH! He's gonna call you a hypocrite!"

I agree 100%. Some of the best people I know have no religion in their lives. And being religious doesn't automatically give one morals either!

Since you've already replied directly to me with nearly the same response word-for-word several times on this thread alone, it wasn't too difficult to figure out.

I should add that myths 2 the Old Testament folks are like parables 2 the New Testament folks. They serve the same purpose and work the same way.

-ol' 2long

What "great truth" did the story of Noah convey?

What I get out of it is "behave or die".

I don't blame you one bit.



Understandable. Too bad, though. I would LOVE to talk about it with you.



That sucks. A similar thing happened to my grandfather when he was in the military. They told him he was "nuts." Or made him feel that way even if they didn't say it that way.



I don't think it's boasting but I'm sure some others would.



Yeah, I bet so. On both counts.

Take care,

Charlotte

FH - I could not be LESS interested in Krazy's thoughts about the Bible. I am only interested in Biblical discussions with fellow believers.

That's just me

medc - noted.

I've tried to be pretty clear.


Going to have to disagree with you here. The appearance of flawed logic is "usually" due to the existence of flawed logic.


How could I ask you any questions without you intrepretating that as supporting an opposing view? Your certainty on the subject matter would seem to require that any comment, other than compliance, to be viewed as opposition.


What word should I use. How would you define a group of people who, as you describe, present themselves as seeking the truth, yet in reality are suppressing it?


I asked a serious question. I asked how could you simultaneously use science as the crux of defeating a view and then further argue that scientists are corrupt (or insert whichever word you would like to use). You said that's not what you were doing. I asked what part of science do you agree with and if it was defined by your spirtual beliefs. You said no, that you have an open mind. I then asked multiple questions to explore how open minded you are. Additionally I asked if you feel it was possible for other people to be as open minded as you and come to a different conclusion. All the while you keep hammering on me about evolution vs. creation and for the most part I am not asking about that.


I'm pretty sure I understand what I was asking. I think you can understand that randomess is not usually the tool of directed action.

But fine, so am I to understand that you agree that some of the components of the evolution theorey are valid, but they do not come together to explain new species.


Sure.


Actually, given enough monkey's, they can compose the Gettysburg Address. War and Peace as well.


Then science has nothing to do with it?


No. The discussion was on randomness. Black Swans are a conceptual term to describe what was thought to be "tail events" typically being more common than expected. This is usually due to a failure to account for randomness or cognitive biases.

I understand, Pep. However, I am of the "school of thought" that believes the biblical directive to always stand ready to give an answer to those who might inquire as to what and why I believe, for the hope that is "within me."

I also understand that there is a difference between a sincere inquiry and "less than sincere" inquiries.

You might wanna note this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

The primary reason I try 2 keep myself away from these boards is because I agree with you that this kind of post is an ad hominem attack ***edit***

-ol' 2long

How interesting!

"Opposition" of ideas does not necessarily imply "bad" or "baiting." It can, if the disagreement is sincere, as well as the interest in discussing and evaluating being sincere, be a normal and acceptable method to consider the arguments and perhaps arrive at a "change in mind" on the part of someone.



Denial, self-interest, bias toward something that, if accepted, might well mean that they would have to change their behaviors and/or beliefs, close-minded, etc.

Not necesarily "corrupt" but unwilling to actually consider opposing viewpoints and how they might relate to the subject matter. "Arrogance" might tend to more closely describe this sort of mindset.



rprynne, if you are not asking about evolution vs. creation, then what ARE you asking? I answered your questions directly, yet it seemed insufficient for you as it related to evolution vs. creation. So needless to say, I am a bit confused by your concluding sentence in the quotation.

I believe that God created AND set the laws in place by which His Creation operates and is sustained. So where does that leave you with confusion about my position?

If by "explore how open minded you are" you mean that I might still be "sitting on the fence not having arrived at a conclusion concerning evolution or creation," then you are incorrect in your usage of the term "open-minded." I am "open minded" with respect to hearing, examining, and evaluation claims made by supporters of evolution, but that does not mean that I will simply "accept what they say" simply because some "scientist says it."



Yes, if by that you mean some things like random mutations of the genetic code. That is NOT the same thing as saying that evolution theory is valid, let alone correct. Mutations follow the Laws of Thermodynamics and do NOT confer new information. Rather, they most often destroy information that makes it less beneficial to the organism, if not fatal if the mutation is severe or critical enough.



Your really think so? On what basis? What "experiment" has proven this to be the case?




Not with respect to Creation. Science can neither explain HOW God created nor can it explain HOW life supposedly came into being WITHOUT God. It offers a theory, but no proof, and accepts that theory(that life somehow DID arise from non-life in opposition to all known scientific laws and principles) on FAITH alone, with science having nothing to do with it.




And it's not germaine to the issue of origins, especially not to the issue of the origin of life.

Here's a couple of "facts" as presented by Science. The age of the universe is estimated to be around 3 billion years old (with the supposed age of the Earth to be substantially less) and the number of electrons in the entire universe is estimated to be about 10 to the 80th power. Those two figures play a dominant role in the "randomness" argument you are are positing for the possibility of life "evolving" from non-life.

Now, to give your "Black Swan" concept and credence, it would entail the need for "random acts of creation" to be continuing rather than a "once for all time" event. GOD is capable of such a feat, since He is not limited by anything, such as in the cases of people who were resurrected from the dead (including Jesus Christ). But "natural processes" as required by evolution ARE constrained by the Laws of the physical realm, not merely by my opinion or my "mindedness."

Seems to me you might want to read that article for yourself.

Well that's one way of looking at it but I imagine that most believers view the Rainbow covenant as a message of a new hope--that when the waters receded the potential for redemption and the promise of divine beneficence remained. In secular terms, its symbolic import perhaps evidences a shift from retributive justice to restorative justice.

That's certainly one message you can get out of it, but it's not the primary message. But then you don't believe in sin, right? You don't believe in God, right? You don't believe in miracles, right? And you likely don't believe that the antedeluvian world was significantly different from the post-deluvian world, right?

Ok.

rprynne - not sure what you were "okaying" when all you said was "okay." Care to elaborate a little?