|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
OH of course I get it now. When you say 0%, you really mean 0% of people who agree with you. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that. No big, you don't get it now. When I said that, I meant 0% of the scientists in the fields I work in that I know. I guess since AlanF isn't on 2night, it's somehow my 2rn for this? -ol' 2long
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
That was weird. I wrote a reply but got a "no longer valid" message when I hit continue, now it's gone.
but in a word, "yes" Got it. No one but a believer in evolution is a scientist despite their degrees, years of training, and experience. I didn't say that, you interpreted it that way. Even scientists are people, and can fall victim 2 wishful thinking. But in a sense you are correct. If one's had the training and become a scientist, but then misuses the 2ls given them, they certainly aren't being scientific, are they? That certainly "defines" the term "scientist" as you interpret it. It goes a long way to understanding why you hold to the presuppositions you do. I appreciate the clarification. Congra2lations, if that's what you read in that. It's not what I said. -ol' 2long
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
Enough.
wenting, again.
-ol' 2long
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464 |
I didn't say that, you interpreted it that way. Even scientists are people, and can fall victim 2 wishful thinking. But in a sense you are correct. If one's had the training and become a scientist, but then misuses the 2ls given them, they certainly aren't being scientific, are they? Well I always love to exit a debate on a point of agreement.
Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22 |
Just J:
Your comments are well taken. I will attempt to put them into practice. Let's hope that the supposed Christians on this forum can do the same.
AlanF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22 |
mkeverydaycnt said: 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. Precisely my point! 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. Your statement above indicates that you agree that there are stones left standing upon stones in the Temple complex. Are you unaware that you're contradicting yourself? That thought is based upon mystical Kabbalistic nonsense. And it is no indication whatsoever that the temple was not destroyed in 70 AD. That a goodly chunk of the Temple is left standing today in the form of the Wailing Wall is hardly "Kabbalistic nonsense." It is an observable fact. 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. In your next post you gave "proof" in the form of this link: www.askelm.com/temple/t000701.htmI read it, and found that author Ernest Martin's claims are quite reminiscient of those of that arch-crank Immanuel Velikovsky, in the sense of his wanting to challenge long-held and solidly proved notions of history. More on this below. 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. Actually, I figured this out all by myself. I read something about the Wailing Wall a few months ago, realized that the Wall was part of the Temple complex, and put two and two together with Matthew 24:1,2. As for these claims being part of Jewish mysticism and being dismissed by scholars the world over, you have not done your homework. The following online information from unassailably solid Christians proves that Martin's claims are bunk: http://www.prophecycorner.com/agee/See the section "THE TEMPLE AND THE FACE ON THE WALL" http://www.templemount.org/theories.html"On The Location of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem" by Lambert Dolphin and Michael Kollen http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/JerusalTempl4.htm"THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE AND THE NEW TESTAMENT" by Richley Crapo, from Atlantic Baptist University Also check this one out: http://www.templemount.org/"The Temple Mount in Jerusalem: Where were the First and Second Jewish Temples Located?" by Tuvia Sagiv I strongly suggest that interested readers look at these links, because they contain many maps, pictures and diagrams that help one understand Jerusalem's geography in a way that gives good understanding of the issues. The simple fact is that Martin wrote his nonsense because he realized full well the same thing that I did a few months ago. He is demonstrably wrong on many points, he selectively quotes various ancient sources when it suits him, and he ignores all modern scholarship on the issue. His scholarship is simply putrid, and his writing style sucks. Bottom line: Martin claims that the Temple was built upon Mount Zion (the location of the City of David), whereas the Bible clearly states that it was built upon Mount Moriah. -- 2 Chronicles 3:1. If you wish to come here with something of substance... do a better job... but for now little man... you are dismissed. I suggest you revisit your claims. I must say that your tone is, well, extremely typical of the Christian Fundamentalists with whom I've butted heads the past 15 years. I find it appallingly familiar. Readers will continue to note your complete avoidance of discussion of evidence. Come on Alan... thought there would be a quick and "educated" comeback to the evidence you have yet to discuss.... No. Quick and uneducated comebacks are what Fundamentalists generally engage in. I spent a good deal of time researching an answer to your challenge. Hmmm... perhaps you are scanning some of your dog eared 4000+ library for a sharp retort! How astute you are! Of course, Google helped a lot. AlanF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22 |
ForeverHers wrote: Alan, just for the record, I had a post typed and ready to post this morning when "poof" a power failure hit and I lost the whole thing. No time to redo it because I had to leave for work. Just goes to show that you need to save your work often! I'll give you an answer, but then I think I will be done with you. All you want to do is attack and not discuss. I could probably write your answer for you. Would you like me to? So far, it has not appeared. As for attacking rather than discussing, note that my first two post were simple, calm, objective presentations of information. Only after bigkahuna and you posted the dismissive, arrogant and contentless drivel that I've come to expect from Christian Fundamentalists did I get a bit sarcastic. I have seem plenty like you, You have, have you? I think not. as you seem to hold a similar opinion of Christians, you friends notwithstanding. You've deliberately missed my point: I have a great deal of love and respect for my Christian friends, who return the favor. However, despite their strong committment to Christianity, not one of them is a Fundamentalist. Indeed, they cannot stomach Fundamentalists for the same reason that most people cannot stomach Islamic Fundamentalists. And also for the record, yes, Jesus is the Messiah. But, since you were raised JW, I have a much better understanding of your vehemence toward Christ. You understand nothing. However, one thing you and I have in common, I'm sure, is that the JWs are a destructive cult. And sadly, for all your library, you don't understand, or are unwilling to understand. On the contrary. I understand perfectly well. I understand that, up to this point, I've seen many empty words from you. Just out of curiousity, Alan, why are you on Marriage Builders? You have posted nothing anywhere but on this thread and none of it is related to infidelity in your life or anything other than an attack on Christ and creation as a model for "how things got here," so what is your motivation for being here and how did you come to find this site, let alone this ONE thread among hundreds? A dear friend asked me to look in and add my two cents. I will say in addition, that my former JW wife committed infidelity in the sense that when she figured out that I had quit that nasty cult, she went "a ' w h o r i n g after the heathen" leadership of the JWs and dumped me. 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? Gee....I don't know. Perhaps lack of time. Perhaps better things to do. Perhaps fate. Perhaps because some don't care how "fast" you want a response. Hah! You have the time to post large amounts of irrelevant verbiage, such as speculating on why I'm on this forum, but have not time enough to get to the meat of my arguments. I detect a strong odor of hypocrisy here. Perhaps because we don't care what you think or what you think because you've made it obvious you want an adversarial conflict and not a real discussion. Hey! My first posts were entirely objective. You and bigkahuna are the ones who turned this adversarial, if our little tete-a-tete here can be called that. Not that I mind adversarial tete-a-tetes, mind you -- I enjoy a good battle with the unarmed! I look forward to your comments on my Mt. Everest post. Not that I think you'll actually say anything of substance. How many days has it been, now? Just speculation, of course, because I'm not a mindreader. Your insincerity is showing. I have to say that I agree with your comments to KiwiJ. Challenging someone to back up their assertions is in no way abridging their religious freedom. I've seen a great many people make that silly claim. AlanF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22 |
rs0522 said: 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. ISTM to be possible to argue otherwise, and that the distinction between the buildings of the Temple and the retaining walls of the Temple Mount makes Jesus' prophecy technically true. Then present what you think is a good argument. The Greek is quite clear that Jesus was talking about ALL of the buildings connected with the inner Temple. From a Greek-English interlinear: 1 . . . and came-toward the disciples of-him to-show to-him the buildings of-the-temple 2 the-one but having-answered said to-them Not you-are-looking-at these-things all? Jesus spoke of all these building s (plural). Your argument must take this clear language into account. As I said, it's a quibble, but so (to be fair) is your assumption that Jesus could not possibly be speaking figuratively. Well sure! I'm addressing Fundamentalists, who would object to taking Jesus' words figuratively. 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? I couldn't imagine. OK, I am lying - I can guess. I figured that out. :-) AlanF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22 |
bigkahuna said to no one in particular: and if you really want to have some fun, why not try reading "Evolution, a theory in Crisis" By Michael Denton - not a Christian but one of your own. Creationists just love to cite Denton's book, but they usually have no idea what they're talking about, and what they cite just doesn't cut the mustard. Here's something I wrote a couple of years ago for creationists who like to cite Denton: In 1985, Michael Denton published the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, in which he argued that there is no real evidence for Darwinistic macroevolution, namely, the evolution of one species into another by means of gradualistic natural selection. Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe credit Denton for first showing them why Darwinism is wrong. But Denton has changed his views considerably in recent years and now accepts that evolution has occurred, but not by the specific means that Darwin proposed. He believes that the natural world shows evidence of intelligent design and apparently that God had a hand in the evolution of life, but not by the "special creation" that Johnson promotes. In 1999, he stated that "the special creationist model is not supported by the facts and is incapable of providing a more plausible explanation for the pattern of life’s diversity in time and space than its evolutionary competitor." (Phillip E. Johnson, Denis O. Lamoureux et al., Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, Regent College Publishing, Vancouver, Canada, 1999, article "Comments on Special Creationism" by Michael J. Denton, p. 154.) He also wrote that he should have made a clearer distinction between evolution on the whole and the specific mechanism proposed by Darwin, and would better have titled his book Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis. ( ibid, p. 142). Or Maybe "Darwin on trial" By Johnson Yeah, right. Johnson and his so-called Intelligent Design movement were given a rather nasty black eye last year when the Dover, Pennsylvania court declared that ID is not science, but religion, and so could not be taught in public schools in America. Among the basic reasons for the decision was that the ID-supported textbook Of Pandas and People was originally written with many uses of the terms "creationism" and so forth, but these terms were later changed en masse to terms like "intelligent design". This proved to the court that the people who wrote the book were simply lying to the public about their agenda. Why anyone should trust such liars is beyond me. AlanF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 683
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 683 |
Hi FH, The often violent and uniform opposition to presenting the Creation Model along with the Evolution Model in schools is "beyond question" and proof of that "restriction of thought" is abundant… this thread, with a few notable exceptions, is NOT willing to discuss the Models. I can’t exactly comment on this as I am not American and I don’t know the details of the school debate. My perspective on teaching creationism in schools would be that it is a good idea to teach it in religious education classes, as it is a part of the Bible. I don’t advocate teaching it in Biology classes, because the observations to date have not supported it. Having said that, I have to add a caveat. You have mentioned on here a few times ‘the creation model’ , but I don’t really understand exactly what you mean by that. My impression is that there are a few different ‘creation model’s. As I understand it, you are discussing a type of ‘creation model’ that allows for speciation? What about natural selection or genetic mutation? Could you elaborate, please? Today, many scientists begin with premise that God did NOT create and that only random chance accounts for not only the universe, but the diversity of LIVING things that arose through the gradual process of evolution in a "molecules to man" sort of trial and error approach. Evolution is the process of genetic change over time. It necessarily happened only after things with genetic sequences (‘life’) was there to begin with. Evolution does not explain how ‘life’ got here originally. There is no observable data either way. Personally, I think it could well have been an act of God. In science there is no premise about God or not God, as that is not a question that science is able to answer. Natural selection, as it has been observed, is far from random chance. It is a highly regulated process. Genetic change over time has not necessarily been gradual… different genes and different organisms seem to evolve at different rates. It might not have happened at a constant rate for all time. In the meantime, with respect to viruses, how does evolution account for viruses who could NOT exist, or at least NOT reproduce, without the cells of complex living organism existing prior to the "appearance" of a virus. In simpler terms, why wouldn't "natural selection" select OUT a virus long before the needed cells evolved to support their "invasion" and use of the host cells DNA to reproduce it? This is very interesting again. As far as I know, there is no indication that viruses are ‘primitive’ organisms. In many ways they are highly successful and quite advanced. In phylogenetic studies, they cannot be reliably placed on the 'tree'. They may well have evolved only after other organisms, not before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Correct... that was your point Alan... summarized in a nutshell... and then came the retort. Tremendously... it is amazing what technology can do for someone... heck, a windbag like yourself can actually find a larger audience outside of his family. You bring a lot of words here... most are without merit... so once again, I will ask you little man... why are you here? Cheating on the wife and feeling guilty about it?
Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 06/30/06 05:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 683
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 683 |
AlanF,
I am sure you have valid points. However, I think its important to pay attention to Just J's post. At the moment the tone of your posts seems more likely to turn off people rather than interest them. This site is a wealth of information about concepts like the DJ, which you may find helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,753
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,753 |
::::::You bring a lot of words here... most are without merit... so once again, I will ask you little man... why are you here? Cheating on the wife and feeling guilty about it?
MEDC, According to the thread heading, I considered this topic open to anyone with an enquiring mind. AlanF is a long time friend of ours and a man who quickly gains enormous respect by all who spend any time with him. Whilst you might think he is opinionated I think he is extremely confident because he is blessed with a razor sharp mind of the likes few of us will encounter in our life time. His research on religion and evolution is staggering. His capacity to study and write is mind boggling. I have mixed in academic circles for over 30 yrs (my H is a professor at one of Australia's leading universities) and never have I met anyone as tenacious and inquiring as Alan. It is a compliment to FH's that I invited Alan to join the discussion. It may not mean much to the group but Alan has been exceptionally forthright with the Jehovah's Witness Organisation, literally marching in to their headquarters demanding a reveiw of their ban on blood transfusions. He's been a consultant on a number of legal matters involving their mistreatment of church members both in the area of pedophilia and excommunication. He is a man who will stand up and be counted with regards justice and righfulness. It's absolutely laughable that you would accuse him of being a little man.
So let's get this really clear. I invited Alan to comment here. The subject was for inquiring minds and not about infidelity. Alan is not cheating on his wife.
If you cannot counter his arguments then desist from commenting - because standing throwing verbal stones (which started when Bigkahuna said Alan was speaking drivel) pretty much says you are upset because you cannot counter his arguments. If you think he is speaking rubbish then do what ordinary people do; explain where he is wrong.
AN
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,753
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,753 |
::::Evolution is the process of genetic change over time. It necessarily happened only after things with genetic sequences (‘life’) was there to begin with. Evolution does not explain how ‘life’ got here originally.
Smur, very interesting comment from you. I am curious to hear more about this.
AN
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
If you think he is speaking rubbish then do what ordinary people do; explain where he is wrong. I've done just that... And AN... I will post to whomever and about whatever I please so save your advice as to my responses. They are irrelevant to me. If this were your thread, I would respect your desire for me not to post... it is not.. so I will do so unless directed by FH to discontinue. So let's get this really clear. I invited Alan to comment here. The subject was for inquiring minds and not about infidelity. Alan is not cheating on his wife. Not a surprise that the invite came from you. Okay... but the question was a fair one... I wanted to know what brought him to an infidelity board. Now I have my answer... it is your disdain for anything "religious" and not infidelity on his part.
Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 06/30/06 07:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093 |
So let's get this really clear. I invited Alan to comment here. The subject was for inquiring minds and not about infidelity. Alan is not cheating on his wife. I for one am very glad you invited Alan here, because although I have a very deep love for God and the historical Jesus, I have an equal love for people...their protection when possibly being brainwashed and mistreated, as well as their thoughts. Even though I am not that interested in the debate between evolution and creationism, I am very interested in people being allowed to freely speak their mind. We cannot evolve spiritually, emotionally or mentally otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060 |
Hi FH - As an example, WAT continues claim that Creation is 'inherently' a religious concept and therefore disqualified from consideration. An important point of clarification: I don't claim creation is disqualified from consideration. Perhaps you are saying this because of my statements about creation (and anything that relies on the supernatural) to be unreachable by the scientific process, in that science is limited to natural phenomena. This ought to be wholly embraced by people of faith everywhere. Religious faith has the means and "jurisdiction" to address the "why" or "purpose" of life and the universe. Science cannot approach those aspects. Evolutionary biologists cannot DREAM nor should not be so arrogant to imagine that their work has any standing in the "whys". A point about "models" of speciation: Statements on this thread have asserted that two models exist - evolution and creation. IMHO, this is inaccurate. In a broader sense, maybe two explanations exist being "natural" and "supernatural." There is just one "natural" (scientific) model: biological evolution. Only one. Personally, I have no idea nor presume to know how many "supernatural" explanations there might be. The (literal Biblical) Christian interpretation is just one. Just within Christianity there appears to be several more. Let's consider for a moment the scenario in which decisions are made that permit alternative explanations to evolution to be presented in US local public school science/biology classes. Which alternatives should be presented? How many? By whom? How and why do we exclude any? IMHO, people of faith ought to be very, very glad that we don't have to confront this dilemma. We all should be thankful that our (US) Constitution embraces religion's need for independence from government. We need to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness and variability of our religious practices. Some tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment, but "persecuted minorities" such as Baptists who didn't want the more popular and established churches to impose their views. anyname - Evolution is the process of genetic change over time. It necessarily happened only after things with genetic sequences (‘life’) was there to begin with. Evolution does not explain how ‘life’ got here originally. This is Evolution 101 - but it's a popular misconception that evolution reaches back to life origins. That's an entirely different topic. For reasons I don't understand, this seems to really upset some creationists and be the genesis (pun intended) of ridicule from them that "Darwinists" are avoiding questions about failings in their darling "theory." Nope. Just another topic. There's a whole bunch of scientists that study the chemistry and physics of life origins. Very different from biology. And circling back to the top of this post - creation is NOT disqualified from consideration by many folks In The Beginning. JMHO WAT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093 |
A point about "models" of speciation: Statements on this thread have asserted that two models exist - evolution and creation. IMHO, this is inaccurate. In a broader sense, maybe two explanations exist being "natural" and "supernatural." There is just one "natural" (scientific) model: biological evolution. Only one. Personally, I have no idea nor presume to know how many "supernatural" explanations there might be. The (literal Biblical) Christian interpretation is just one. Just within Christianity there appears to be several more Bingo, and the point I believe 2long has been trying to get across as well. Growing up in a Christian home (Presbyterian/Methodist), I never once heard of quite a few of the beliefs Fundalmentalist Christians are claiming as "the truth", and never once heard(in church or at home) that evolution and Christianity were in conflict, it simply never was an issue. Science was science and religion was religion... What seemed to cause more doubt than evolution in "believing" was civilation itself (war, disease, hunger, child abuse/murder)...and possibly a better place to concentrate our internal doubts and quest. I read something last night which I am reminded of now - "the pathless path"...our search for enlightenment begins and ends within ourselves, and from there it spreads out, into our R's, our families, our communities and finally into civilization. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 219
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 219 |
rs0522 said: ISTM to be possible to argue otherwise, and that the distinction between the buildings of the Temple and the retaining walls of the Temple Mount makes Jesus' prophecy technically true. Then present what you think is a good argument. Well, I've already done that. There is no way to prove that Jesus was referring to the retaining walls when He spoke about the buildings. Jesus' disciples pointed out the buildings, specifically, and Jesus then prophesied that the buildings, specifically, would all be thrown down. He didn't say that the entire Temple Mount would be destroyed; he referred specifically to the buildings on top of it that His disciples indicated. Or so the quibble might run. I don't think it is at all clear if Jesus was referring to the retaining walls as part of the buildings, or not. Thus the quibble is an unfalsifiable objection to a unfalsifiable theory as to what Jesus actually meant. It just doesn't seem as devastating an objection to the prophecy being fulfilled as you seem to believe. Not that it has much to do with evolution. Let me post this before it gets timed out, and then I will have a look at some of the other stuff that has more to do with creationism. Regards, rs0522
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
Ac2ally, Jesus was a carpenter, not a mason.
So maybe he didn't mean quite what he said? Or wasn't all that specific? Or didn't know what he was talking about?
Gotta hit the road (though I'm not a paver). Be back in a week or 2.
-ol' 2long
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
236
guests, and
72
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,621
Posts2,323,490
Members71,959
| |
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
|
|
|
|
