piojitos -

FH's statements regarding "faith" and "belief" have been clear enough, although not accepted by me or others. Fair enough.

Now you've taken it still further by assigning "religion" status to evolutionary biology. Care to elaborate? FH says that evolution requires disbelief in a supreme power (although not all agree), whereas "religion" is defined as requiring supernatural or superhuman powers. Can't have it both ways.

To me, this distinction is the root of the debate. The scientific process is religion or faith neutral - precisely because is deals only with natural phenomena. Supernatural stuff is beyond its reach. Religion and faith allow for and embrace the supernatural. That's why it's called "faith." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

If you'd care to explain why you think science is religion despite this straightforward distinction, please do so. All the astrologers and witch doctors, as well as the State of Kansas, may appreciate a compelling argument.

WAT
----------------
Remember the scientific process the next time you visit your doctor and he orders an EKG and blood tests instead of chanting incantations and shaking colored beads over your head.

FH - Are you ignoring my last question? You said simple questions were fine <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I would just like to understand your position.

Hi, AlanF -

While I take your point about Jesus' prophesies, I doubt if it will help too much.

It is nearly always possible to quibble your way out of these sorts of things. For instance, you wrote -


Your quote shows that Jesus was talking about the temple buildings, not the retaining walls around the Temple Mount. Thus the survival of some of the structures built by Herod do not mean that Jesus' prophecy about the buildings attributed to Solomon is wrong.

Yes, yes, I know it is a petty quibble, and that Jesus was speaking figuratively. I am trying to say that it is a mistake (in my opinion) to use the Bible to discuss evolution at all. That's not what it is about.

Your information about Mount Everest and so forth is much more valuable, IMO, because it is falsifiable. Thus, scientific, if you see what I mean.

Regards,
rs0522

BK-
I'm guessing AlanF has been lurking for a while, and finally found a subject he HAD to weigh in on. I could be wrong, but it looks that way to me.

Everyone has an opinion about this subject. Some feel more comfortable than others in discussing. I'm thrilled that FH has started this thread, and that so many are contributing. Regardless of one's opinion, all are doing very well to stay civil, and that's more than we can say about the real world.

I have seen some cases of circular logic here, but I'm more interested in hearing folks than calling them down yet. I personally wouldn't call AlanF's posts drivel. Inflammatory? Possibly--depending on where you stand in the whole topic.

Please, everyone, keep up the discussion.

bigkahuna said:


Wow, bigkahuna, you posted on an infidelity forum to post drivel in response to my drivel? I'm not impressed.

Actually, your response is about what I expected from certain types of posters. More on that later.

For now I will point out that bigkahuna's response to my studied post is typical of such from the various Fundamentalists I've dealt with the past 15 years -- lots of heat and ad hominem, but no substance.

AlanF

rprynne - What? You have not posted a thing in 6 days and I'm "ignoring you?" This would lead me to believe that there is much more to your motivation than simply trying to "understand" my position. How about trying this one for size as a "positional statement;" I am ONE person trying to give cogent response to all who are posting. As piojitos pointed out, it takes a lot of time. Suffice it to say that I have other things that impact on my available time, like a job and like a wife and children, etc. So I post when I can. Suffice it to say you really should need a specific answer to your post because, if you've been reading, I have answered them many times in various postings.

However, so you won't be offended, let me spend a little of my available time on your 6 day old questions and see if you might post something with more frequency than 6 day intervals (especially when that post only adds an "attack" that I am ignoring you. My answers will be in blue.

I am waiting with baited breath, hanging on every word.



If you want to have a discussion, Alan, then drop the smugness and the condescencion and DISCUSS things civily and rationally.

I am debating with myself about even responding to you. But perhaps tomorrow I'll find some time, or maybe I'll just wait until the weekend when things aren't quite so hectic.

I've stayed off this thread for a 2ple of reasons:

Letter 1: I've got a LOT 2 do this week before heading out for a week off.

Number b: It's still fruitless.

But I got drawn back here for a 2ple reasons, 2.

Number a: AlanF's post about Mt Everest.

Letter 2: that damned definition of "faith".

Alan's right abot Mt Everest fossils. As I recall, I posted something about this pages back, which is why I know that a good percentage of FH's time posting 2 his own thread is spent at the expense of reading much of the responses... ...or really thinking about them sensibly.

I looked up "faith" on dictionary.com just now, and the FIRST definition is:

"1: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

I've always "believed" (there's another one) that faith can be applied 2 the scientific method, and that it is all the time. I think I've said so several times over the course of these kinds of discussions. Always ignored, however. Faith in this context is simply believing in the viability of an idea - a hypothesis - such that the scientist is willing 2 put some effort, time, and yes, money in2 testing said hypothesis. it's that simple. No 'higher power' required. That isn't 2 say that there is no higher power, just that it's an unrelated subject.

Likewise, I've said many times on here over the last 4.5 years that I'm spiri2al, but I'm not religious. That statement is clear as a bell 2 me, but seems 2 be clear as mud 2 FH and others here.

I might even know AlanF, but in a way I hope I don't. Because that would suggest he may be yet another colleague who's been subjected 2 infidelity in his life and that he found this thread while researching infidelity.

-ol' 2long

Wow I can hardly wait.

And as I think I stated pretty clearly, I am not getting drawn into this debate. Your response is typical of certain types of rabbid evolutionists as well. So for me, there is no point debating this with you in this forum.

To ForeverHers:

Your bark is bigger than your bite. Let me demonstrate:


Wrong. I have a great deal of respect for certain Christians, most especially my close Christian friends. They also (unless they're completely insincere) have a good deal of respect for me.


Wrong again. As an agnostic -- not an atheist; there is a big difference -- I do not know whether there are gods or not. I do not know if Zeus, or Thor, or Allah, or Yahweh exists. I do know that none of these gods has any influence in my life. Because I do not know whether these gods exist, I cannot properly be accused of "knowing better than God."

Of course, your very phrasing shows your narrow view of the world of mankind, since you obviously think that your particular Christian God is the one and only. But I know that you're just doing the natural thing for Christian young-earth creationists, and I don't hold it against you.


A fairly typical rejoinder from a young-earth creationist, in my experience. I actually have a lot more knowledge of Scripture and the Christian faith than most Christians, given that I've studied the subject from near and far. I have a library of about 4,000 books on various technical topics with regard to religion, history, archaeology, paleontology, geology, and various other sciences.

That you can conclude, based on at most two posts, that I don't know my [censored] from my elbow on these things is, well, pretty typical of what I often refer to as your "braindead fundamentalist-style Christians", which include -- as I'm sure you'll agree -- the Jehovah's Witnesses, in which braindead cult I had the misfortune to be raised.


Hey, them's fightin' words!

But of course, readers will note that in this post of ForeverHers, not a word is written in rebuttal to my proof that Jesus was a false prophet.


You think too much of yourself. I would prefer to spend my time messing with my motorcycle.


Not really. Christianity in general is relatively benign these days, and I wouldn't want to mess with it. It serves a useful purpose.


You got that right.


LOL! Your powers of perception fall short of your views of yourself.


Zowie! You got another one right!


An interesting personal anecdote, but irrelevant to what I've posted.


Of course there is. I've given readers a very good example, by showing that Jesus Christ was a false prophet. From there, everything else in Christian Fundamentalism falls.


Do you have any idea how "Jehovah's Witness-ish" you sound? Probably not.


You're being disingenuous. What you call the "Creation Model" certainly allows for "mutations and variations within the various Kinds", but you and your ilk absolutely fail to put substance into the words. You really have no idea what limits, if any, there are on how mutations and "variations" can change one population of creatures into another in the fullness of time, i.e., how species change over time into something that can be called another species. You cannot explain how a few "beetle kinds" that survived on Noah's Ark could evolve into upward of several million today (by the best estimates) in a mere four thousand or so years.


Yet another misrepresentation. I have yet to come across a good scientist who thinks that he gives "godlike" answers to anything. On the contrary, most scientists I know are deferential to the facts. That doesn't mean that arrogant scientists don't exist. They most certainly do, for scientists are as human as everyone else. What it means is that, on the whole, scientists are in it for the science, for the facts -- not to support some preconceived notion.


You're doing what is so common among YEC's -- forgetting the history of the development of modern biology, geology and related sciences. Some two hundred years ago, most scientists were ardent Christians and embraced some sort of literal interpretation of Genesis. They could hardly do otherwise, being steeped in a deeply Christian European and American culture from birth. But as time passed, a few scientists noted that religiously motivated explanations of the observed facts (such as the position of various fossils in rock formations) were inconsistent with the facts. Thus, various scientists, by fits and starts, formulated postulated explanations (i.e., "theories") that fit better with the observations. Thus was born modern geology, paleontology and so forth. The theory of evolution was just another of the theories proposed to account for the observations. So, because these early scientists started with an assumption of the validity of traditional Christian ideas, and the facts caused them to reject these, it can hardly be claimed that these scientists, or those who followed, first accepted "the Evolution Model" (because it did not exist), and then rejected Christian notions as a result. Such a claim is a lie, because it misrepresents the actual sequence of the development of scientific thought.


Again you're grossly wrong. You assume that the Fundamentalist/Young-Earth Creationist position is the ONLY valid Christian position. It is not. A number of my Christian friends are convinced that the Christian God guided evolution in some way. Many scientists have no problem with that, since the basic question of how evolution occurred, and certainly how life began, is not solved in detail.


Of course. Which is why the so-called "Intelligent Design" creationists were handed their heads in last year's landmark court case in Pennsylvania.


A non sequitur if I ever saw one.


Trivially true. The real question here, though, since you brought it up, is whether the young-earth creationist "model" of the history of the universe is real, or is just a fairy tale. I argue for the latter, based on any number of facts, including the fact that Jesus was demonstrably a false prophet.

AlanF

2long said:

: I've said many times on here over the last 4.5 years that I'm spiri2al, but I'm not religious. That statement is clear as a bell 2 me, but seems 2 be clear as mud 2 FH and others here.

I'm with you, man!

AlanF

I'm sure you have been. Your wait is obviously over.


What do you think I've been doing? My "smugness and condescension" is entirely a reflection of yours. You obviously have no idea, from my standpoint, how smug and condescending you are.

I acknowledge that you, in contrast to certain other posters here, are pretty astute in some matters. That is why I respond to you the way I do, and to others the way I do.


Two strikes against you because of your arrogance and condescension. I will overlook it for now.


Man, you're funny! You don't know how funny you are!

AlanF

bigkahuna said:


As I said to ForeverHers, your wait is over. I just hope you can read with comprehension.


I'm glad that you recognize your limitations in the marshalling of facts and in debating skills.


Thanks for the compliment! But readers will note your complete avoidance of the facts and of a committment to your Christian commission to "let your light shine."


Clearly not. Jesus was demonstrably a false prophet, you admit it, and that's that.

AlanF

Bwhahahahahaha

rs0522 said:


I agree, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.


This is completely wrong. According to Matthew, Jesus was not talking about just the Temple itself, but about the [ul]buildings[/ul] comprising the Temple complex. Obviously, the Temple complex included the retaining walls.

I trust that you've noted that the several Christian Fundamentalists who have posted on this thread have entirely failed to address even the smallest points in my post. Why do you think that is?


Ohhggghhh! Ye of little faith!

How can you claim that Jesus was not speaking literally?


I tend to agree. But the YEC's posting on this thread do not.


That's why I posted it.

AlanF

bigkahuna said:


Like I said to ForeverHers, this sort of reasoning is why Intelligent Design creationists were handed their head in the recent Pennsylvania creation trial.

AlanF

I just think you're hilarious man.

Alan... why are you here?

Good question MEDC

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

The Temple refurbishment continued after Herod's death and was completed in AD66. It was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 just as Jesus predicted almost 40 years earlier.

The Western Wall, also known as the Wailing Wall, of the Temple Mount is all that remains from the days of Herod's Temple. As the Jews cry out to God they pray for the temple to be rebuilt on the Holy Site.


So do not consider that the Wailing Wall is of any indication that Jesus' prophecies in Matthew 24 were not yet fulfilled, as though there are still stones left standing from the temple of Jerusalem. That thought is based upon mystical Kabbalistic nonsense. And it is no indication whatsoever that the temple was not destroyed in 70 AD.

What is known now as the wailing wall seems in all likelihood to actually be the Western Wall of an early Roman fortress (finally built and enlarged by Herod the Great). King Herod called it Fort Antonia, after the famous Mark Anthony who lived at the end of the first century before Christ.

Alans claims are representative of the claims made by a discredited Jewish mysticism, called Kabbalah. He has basically copied their claims and pasted them here. These claims are dismissed by scholars the world over as being without merit.

If you wish to come here with something of substance... do a better job... but for now little man... you are dismissed.