MM - understand. But responing to it was the only way I could segue the "late for b'fast" jab. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

WAT

FGG's riddle of the day:

By what actions do we demonstrate that we are Christ's disciples?:

A) Demonstrating our belief in the Genesis account as we understand it.

B) Condeming those contentious liberals and their ilk.

C) Showing our unwavering support for Ann Coulter.

D) Other

Hint:

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you __________________" John 13:35

Oh and to clear things up...I will never be a liberal AND never be late for breakfast!!

In His arms.

Well, Anne needs to update her criticisms of science and specifically evolution. All of her "facts" were discounted YEARS ago during the "Creation Science" flare ups. This spew may pass muster with the wing nuts, but she's a laughing stock with more informed folks on this topic.

She begins her screed by saying that liberals have contempt for science.

What?

She offers as proof that liberals support stem-cell research.

Yes, I know, I don’t get it either.

Lots of conservatives also support stem-cell research. Nancy Reagan, for one. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for another. Gov. Arnold has even supported increased funding for stem-cell research in California, after the federal government, kow-towing to the religious right, cut off money to explore this vital area of scientific research.

“Liberals,” Coulter writes, “just want to kill humans.”

Moving on, she then says liberals worship the theory of evolution.

Which is science.

Which she says liberals have contempt for. See above.

BTW, I consider myself a moderate conservative.

WAT

Not sure how your riddle applies here, GG. We were having a discussion here about evolution and creation. Nothing unloving about that.

I guess you need to maybe expand upon your riddle to make me understand. Old dumb Infantry grunt that I am!!

In His arms.

It WILL take until the “end of time,” but it will happen. I agree wholeheartedly with that premise.

Rprynne - If I may digress for a minute into religious belief, I can perhaps give you a better understanding of my agreement with this quotation.

“For this is what the LORD says – he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited – he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in the land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.

Gather together and come; assemble you fugitives from the nations. Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to gods that cannot save. Declare what is to be, present it – let them take counsel together.

Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.

Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, ‘In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.’” All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame. But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult.” (Isaiah 45:18-25, NIV emphasis added)


“It is written: “’As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘Every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’” (Romans 14:11 NIV emphasis added)


“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.” The light shines in the darkness, but he darkness has not understood it.” (John 1:1-5 NIV)


“that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:10-11 NIV)



I understand WAT (and strict evolutionists as well) to say that NO Creator was involved in any creation, let alone the creation of life. One CAN come to that conclusion, but only by rejection of Jesus Christ who IS the “Word” who created all things. If there are ONLY two possibilities as to how things got here, and one of those possibilities is rejected from consideration and evaluation, the result is FAITH in “no Creator,” FAITH that against the Laws of Thermodynamics greater order is achieved despite the loss of information and useful energy, FAITH that “spontaneous generation” occurred AT LEAST ONCE (include at this point “theistic evolutionists) and has not been a “reproducible” or “scientifically verifiable” event, FAITH that “all things in the past are as they are now,” and I’d submit that is tantamount to, if not in fact, a “religious” belief in “naturalism” as the “causative agent” exclusively.



This is a very true statement.



I agree. That’s part of why I “chuckle” when WAT tries to dismiss my arguments out of hand by saying that anyone who believes the world is some 10,000 years old is “hopeless” for discussion. I’ve never said dogmatically that the earth is 10,000 years old. But I also don’t believe it couldn’t be 10,000 years old. Evidence, at least with respect to the inanimate world, exists that is interpreted as “proving” an “Old Earth” or a “Young Earth.” But when discussing “evolution” what we are really discussing for all intents and purposes is LIFE, not nonliving things. We are discussing other things that have impacted the Earth, such as the Great Flood and the potential world that existed pre-Flood and that exists post-Flood, or even if there WAS a “Great Flood,” as most evolutionists will deny a “universal flood” per the biblical account.



Yes, I agree. That is precisely why I have said many times that such discussions as this one on evolutionism and creationism are “irrelevant” in the “grand scheme of things.” THE question remains, “Is Jesus Christ who he said he is?” If he is not, then the question at least devolves into “Is there a God who created everything.” However, if Jesus Christ IS the one who “every knee shall bow” to, and is the Word through whom and by whom all things were created, then naturalistic arguments and BELIEFS won’t make a difference in the “final outcome.”



Okay. THE “objective truth” in all of this IS Jesus Christ. And learning about Jesus Christ and God is a lifelong endeavor. If one wants to, they can examine the data concerning Jesus Christ, evaluate it, and arrive at conclusions. Whether or not they choose to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior” is different from accepting the validity of who he is by the evidence available to us. Even Lucifer knows WHO Jesus is. Knowledge alone is not the same thing as acceptance of some thing. Personal “bias” enters in at that point. Choice and presupposition enter in and direct future choices because the reality is someone is either FOR or AGAINST Jesus as Lord, Savior, and Creator.




Precisely the point that I have been making.



Yes it does. And that is not always an easy task for humans and their emotions.



rprynne - Hopefully that will give you greater understanding of “my” position. WAT and others will have to speak for themselves and their own positions.



WAT stated: [/b] “There is only one scientific, natural model for speciation. Just one. That's biological evolution. It will remain as such until some other natural explanation comes along to supplant it.

There are many, many supernatural ones, including creation. I could dream up a few more before lunch.” [/b]

In this “arena” of understanding, I understand WATs’ position and I disagree with it. He chooses to not understand my position and that is okay with me. I understand his position because it is the same position that I was taught in school (High School and College) and is what I “accepted” based on the “experts” that were used to support the contention that there “is only one scientific, natural model for speciation.” Of course there is only one NATURAL model, that IS the premise of evolution. There also is a "supernatural" model(if one wants to assume that God Himself is not “natural”), and that is that a Creator CREATED on purpose and with a design in mind and was the source for all that is in the "natural world." But that model assumes that a Creator exists, and that is something that doesn't sit well with evolutionists.

Here is the(my) “understanding of WAT’s position: There is no God and/or if some Creator exists he/she did NOT create anything beyond the various particles and/or elements and then “stepped out of the picture” and let “happen what might happen without any plan or direction by any conscious thought.” THEREFORE, ONLY naturalistic causes can explain how things got here.

In short, the PREMISE is founded upon the BELIEF (Faith) that God does not exist OR that if a “god” exists that “god” did NOT create anything (other than perhaps the first inanimate things) and simple took a “take it or leave it” approach to whether anything might develop “on it’s own.” No “blueprints,” no “design,” no “intentional, willful, creating of LIFE, let alone “life in the image of God.”

Suffice it to say, the order and physical laws of the universe were (in my “belief” in the existence of God, as proven in Jesus Christ who CAN be examined and evaluated and accepted or rejected AS God the Son, the Messiah) established by, and are maintained, by the will and power of God. Those things CAN be examined and evaluated and, in many cases but not all, subjected to the “scientific method” of analysis. That includes the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics that WAT likes to presume that I don’t understand. The truth is that I am NOT a physicist, but I do understand what a physical LAW is to the scientific world. Those two laws PRECLUDE biological evolution. But in order to support the “evolution of LIFE,”(that is, the evolving of different KINDS of organisms with increasing complexity and information in the genetic material AFTER the initial “accident of nature” that gave rise to the FIRST living and sustainable life-form), WAT, and evolutionists in general, like to modify the Laws to say that so-called “Open Systems” provide an exception to the Law. Part of the problem with this “modification,” without getting into a big discussion about it at this time, is the “availability of energy” is not the same thing as “utilizing or converting” that energy into something useful (i.e. negating the 2nd Law) and going against the Entropy limit on “greater organization or complexity.”

Arnold and Nancy are conservatives? Wow...the definition has changed I guess!

In His arms.

WAT-

I recently learned definition #2 in my Landscape Design class. However, I assume you're attributing definition #1 to your use of the word. (I was picturing Anne on her hands and knees leveling concrete in a walkway, so I had to look it up):

screed n.

A long monotonous speech or piece of writing, or

A strip of wood, plaster, or metal placed on a wall or pavement as a guide for the even application of plaster or concrete.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, WAT. I am capable of speaking for myself.

For the record: the claims of evolutionists DO NOT "disprove" God. They are a BELIEF, not proof.

Well THAT takes the cake, FH!!!

Sheese! How many times did you just speak for me in your diatribe above???

BTW, you made quite a few mistakes doing so.

Are you surrounded by an impermeable bozone layer?

I guess I'll have to repeat this yet again: evolution is not a belief anymore than gravity is a belief. Write this on the board 50 times FH because you still don't get it - and it's fundamental to understanding the scientific process.

WAT

"" impermeable bozone layer?""

AWESOME!!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

"" impermeable bozone layer?""

Uncalled for. Name calling is for children, WAT and Krusht. You can do better than this.

One firm rule in a debate or argument is that as soon as you result to name calling, you have lost the argument.

In His arms.

Well, MM, if you're gonna police this, go back to the beginning and use the same criteria on all of FH's posts. You'll have plenty to keep you busy. Predict you'll thank me for not stooping as low for so long.

And, I don't consider that name calling. "You're a bozo" would be name calling. "Why are you acting like a bozo?" is not.

"You're a bigot," is name calling. "What you said is bigoted" is not.

WAT

WAT, this is getting fun! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sheese! How many times did you just speak for me in your diatribe above???

I'm not sure. Can you count them for me? I've evolved past the need for numbers. Besides, STATING what you have said many times before is NOT putting words your mouth. You BELIEVE that your belief in evolution is NOT a faith. You are entitled to delude yourself by changing the definition of words to suit your purposes, but that doesn't change the fact there remains NO proof that life "evolved" from non-life. You accept it as "truth" because you reject the creative act of a living Creator. When you believe in something that has not been proven, what DO you call it? Anything other than "faith" would be an unproven hypothesis or theory, NOT proven fact. You believe in "no God" in so far as creation is involved, but you DO believe in mystical, magical, random combinations of chemicals to construct something much more complex than a building. Yet you steadfastly refused to answer my previous question to you about that very "building scenario."

If the "cat" has your tongue, I can send the "dogs" after the "cat" so you can "speak for yourself" instead of remaining silent or attempt to divert the question to something less meaningful. But you are doing adds precious little to contribute to discussion, much less understanding, of WHY you believe what you believe. You prefer to "hurl pebbles" at me because I have the "temerity" to tell you that gravity is a PROVEN scientific fact while evolution as an explanation of how life got here and IS a faith in an unproven theory. Whether I believe in gravity or not does NOT change the truth of gravity. Neither does the reality of HOW things got here change simply because you SAY and BELIEVE that a Creator was not involved without one shred of verifiable, reproduceable, proof of living things being "created" by random chance of evolutionary belief.

I can't "prove" creation by God by the scientific method any more than you can prove evolution. It really IS that simple WAT. We BOTH believe by faith in something else that has direct bearing on HOW things "got here" that is "unproveable" via the scientific method.

So you can repeat your dogma 50 or 500 times and it won't change anything. Denial IS blinding WAT, and you seem to be in deep denial over belief in evolution being a "faith" in something unknown and unseen.

""WAT and Krusht. You can do better than this.""

Lighten up dude...it was FUNNY!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I saw no malice intended. If FH would have said it (and he could have said it) it would have been as funny...maybe more!!

EDITED TO QUOTE:

""I can't "prove" creation by God by the scientific method any more than you can prove evolution. It really IS that simple WAT. We BOTH believe by faith in something else that has direct bearing on HOW things "got here" that is "unproveable" via the scientific method.''

I think they might agree to disagree. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

It's all in what style of Rose Colored Glasses we are wearing on any given day. I actually prefer Polarized, and sometimes even Blue Blockers. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Sorry if I missed the funny. I just know that as soon as this got into name calling, this thread would end. And it has been quite interesting so far and I am learning a lot. So, just dont want it to degrade to that.

In His arms.

I haven't read the last full page of stuff yet. I paused at FGG's riddle of the day. And I have to comment about Ann Coulter, and have a question for WAT to expand his thinking on. And I think I see a common thread in all this disagreement, and I want to pull it out for a minute.

MM, though WAT may not be calling you a liberal, Ann Coulter might. If you're gonna fight, better call her up and invite her! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

WAT, you've said several times that evolution is not a matter of faith any more than gravity is. Could you expand on that? You see, I can observe the reality of gravity (drop book on toe, exclaim "Ow! Gravity works!"). I cannot observe the reality of evolution, though I can observe the reality of monkeys and little girls.

So are you instead talking about the theories of the two things? The theory of gravity, whether classical Newtonian gravity or Einstein's general relativity, postulates a model for how gravity (the "Hey! Books fall!" part) actually works. If so, then are you saying that evolution, as a theory or model, is not a matter of faith because, as with the theory of gravity, because of the ongoing testing of the theory against observable facts?

And then there's FGG's riddle, which is, I have a sense, a key that both FH and MM may want to consider. If evolution disproves God, I shall be heartily sorry to see you both lose the faith that keeps you whole and grounded. So I think FGG's reminder is important. It's not a belief in creation that keeps you in God's light. It's love.


And then there's the common thread. Though there is hearty disagreement about evolution/creation (and rprynne, your quote from Dr. Adler's book was wonderful!), it seems to me that most of the people who post here have acknowledged, in some way or another, that the world around us strikes us dumb with awe sometimes. That there is such beauty and grandeur in the world that we cannot help but marvel -- and many of us (though not all) attribute that marvelous existence to a Higher Power.

It's not much. But as common ground, it's a starting point.

Edited 'cause I forgot to ask my question to WAT.

She had better not be calling me a liberal. No one is to the right of me!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


Oh, that is true. But it is not loving to lie to me. Thus if Jesus' word is not true, then He lied. And if He lied, He does not love me and He is NOT God.

In His arms.

FH - Ok, let me try again.

Are you saying

1) there many observable facts
2) upon observation of those facts people determine if it is consistent with the theorey of evolution.
3) If it is consistent, they publish and popularize the facts.
4) If it is not consistent they first try to modify the theorey to now fit the facts, but constrain the modifications to exclude creation. They then publish and popularize the new modified theorey and the facts.
5) If that fails, they disregard the facts.

Am I getting warmer?