If christianity is true than god is a hyprocrit

[JamesM]

Moai, thanks for posting a response.

 

It isn't about manners. How many times has evolution come up, and you have been given links and overviews of the current thinking and you still post drivel. That being the case, who has bad manners?

 

I have not kept count. Guessing that was rhetorical. Personally while you feel it is drivel, I do not. I may not always be correct, but then I expect a correction. Yet simply because it disagrees with your viewpoint or even the evolutionist's viewpoint does not qualify it as drivel.

 

But the continuing misrepresentation of the facts as if somehow the position you state is even remotely considered in the subject at hand is tiresome.

 

Again, then feel free to not tire yourself out. My post was directed at Enema in response to his bringing up evolution as a fact...again. Technically he was moving this thread into the field of evolution. Perhaps I should have ignored the challenge but I felt it needed that correction at least. We have gone over this time and time again as well. No matter what my position is nor yours, evolution is not a fact. In this case, Enema referred to the theory as a fact...this is a contradiction. Using your example of gravity...the theory that explains gravity does not become a fact simply because it is well supported. It is still a theory even it is the best explanation that we currently have.

 

I am gald that you have been impressed with some of my posts--I enjoy yours very much on the whole--but I feel that it is time to get beyond this vapid pseudoscience. If you took offense personally, let me apologize, as that was ot my intent. That said, if we are going to discuss science then we should post references. Period.

 

Okay, I will attempt to make links. However, assertions will be made I am sure by me even if I have no link. I am not perfect. I assume that you are equating evolution with science. Sorry...I and many others will never buy that evolution is the answer to the beginning of the world. While you may scoff at the idea, I firmly believe that one day we will have the answer...from God Himself. I respect that you may not agree with that, and I am not attempting to direct a discussion into that direction.

 

None of their tripe is taken seriously ANYWHERE outside of Christian bookstores and semi-literate websurfers.

 

The men doing the work, looking at the actual data and undergoing peer review get the benefit of the doubt.

 

We can go back and forth on this, but that is not my intention. Simply said...there are scientists who do believe that there is a God who created this world, and they do do research with the actual data. And they are not all connected with AiG or similar organizations. And to nitpick your comment..does anywhere include churches, synagogues and mosques?

 

Lest you think I am being to harsh on the ID crowd or Creationists, I am not. If anything, I am being nice. I could go on and on (I am going to start a new thread about this, I hope you will provide your opinion), but I won't here.

 

You try quite well most of the time, but your disbelief in a God does come through at times. I will check out your thread, but I am not interested in engaging in this discussion again. If it is in a different direction...perhaps.

 

I have read that before, and refer to it often. Where in there does it support your assertion about horse transitionals?

 

I am sorry...it wasn't...nor was it intended for that. I never did address the horse issue.

 

There is no debate whatsoever in the scientific community that evolution is a fact. None. And to say there is, or to suggest that biologists are "guessing" or obfuscating is not only insulting to them, it is insulting to reason in general.

 

So 100% of all scientists are evolutionists who believe that the world began via abiogenesis? No, I think there is debate concerning that. And while I am sure that with a little searching, quite a few non-evolutionary scientists would be named, I am fairly certain that because they do not believe in evolution...this would disqualify them as serious scientists in your mind. So, I guess that this would be a stalemate issue.

 

Touche. If I implied that you ruin posts, I apologize, as I am equally as culpable as you in that regard. Still, this is not the situation to digress into an argument that really doesn't exist. Evolution is a fact. Creationism (in any form) lost 150 years ago. Every thinking person on the planet is aware of this.

 

Apology accepted. Again, please distinguish between the theory that explains the microevolution that we have seen happen. The theory of evolution is not a fact. And again, to be technical, creationism "lost" in the 1920s with the PR success of the media. It was not until a few years later that the schools began publicly teaching it. When it was publicly accepted, then the tide turned to evolution. I am not disagreeing with that, but many thinking people do believe that it is how we began with a God as our Creator.

 

I am self-appointed. And I didn't mean to, and as such I humbly apologize.

 

Accepted. I just thought maybe I missed the official ceremony.

 

I still await your horse transitional link, or a reference to a book that supports your statement.

 

Admittedly at work, I don't have a library, and if I cannot find a link, then I am in trouble. Time restrained me from doing too much searching. This applies to Dawkins' book as well. I guess I am supposed to be working, huh?

 

Let me see if I can find something. I know I read how this succession of horses has been shown not to be as smooth as the books say. If you never hear of one, then feel free to say I told you so. It probably means I forgot when I was at the library, but hey, you can gloat.

 

Irony!

 

Yeah, I can get on that horse, too.

 

Nope. Evolution IS HAPPENING.

 

We have been down this road. I have been meaning to look at the supposed evidences for this on Talkorigins. Let me make a note of this.

 

If a god created the Earth and all the species in their complexity, then what created the god and his complexity--given that he/she/it MUST be more complex than the world we are in. You can't, so you are left with what is referred to as "infinite regress."

 

As you are well aware, there are some excellent explanations for this very question. It is an old argument from atheists, and many smarter men than I have answered it. For me to derail this thread further would be fruitless. If you would like to strengthen your views or challenge the, there are some good books that address this.

 

I think someone who holds an erroneous belief in the face of evidence is a twit, but that is as far as it goes. And being a theist doesn't make one a twit, IMO. Being a Creationist does, though.

 

:laugh: Hello, my name is James, and I am a twit. :laugh:

 

You may have that as your opinion, but while I think many viewpoints are wrong, I do not think of them as twits. Interesting....the definition of twit is... : a silly annoying person : fool .

 

However, remember...name calling is one of those fallacies...no matter how much you think the name fits.

 

I await your links to a Dawkins quote also, by the way. Care to address that? But you made specific quotes about his position, and I didn't see you address that AT ALL. We both know it is because you can't, and that's fine.

 

My intention was not to give direct quotes. I don't think I said that. Again, I do not have his book in hand. Maybe if we begin a thread about Dawkins, then further space can be wasted. When I refer to his ignorance about theology, I am talking of his perceptions of God and the Bible. And then he takes his perceptions of how he sees God and wonders how theists can believe such a God. They don't. His view of God is incorrect and certainly is not the one that Christians believe is their Lord and Savior. When I read The God Delusion, I was appalled at how one could have such a twisted view of the same God I know and the Bible I read. I am aware that your opinions line up with Dawkins, so my intention is not to call you twisted. And I in no way think Dawkins is stupid or twisted...this is what the book seemed to me. Yet to call God cruel and the Bible immoral when theology has answered many of the points he used to support his premises speaks to me that he makes assertions while not investigating the validity of how theology views them. Many of his thoughts have been discussed by theologians with excellent explanations.

 

I remember in one part where he picked some letters written by a president of a historical society(who was a Christian) disagreeing with Einsteins views...then proceeded to imply that ALL Christians were that stupid. The next step was to imply (or even state....without the book I need to be careful with a quote ) that since Christians were this stupid, there cannot be a God. While most serious Christian scholars would disagree with this, Dawkins does not seem to bother checking. If he did, then this would have ruined his fun.

 

Again, he creates many straw man arguments by misrepresenting the very view he is attacking. If he had presented his caricature of God and His people to some educated theologians...and then rewriting it with intelligent arguments, his premise would have seemed more believable to those who did believe in a God. While I know that many who already agreed with him found this book entertaining and informative, those of us who disagree cannot find it fairly written.

 

From what I read, one of his main strong arguments for there being no God is similar to what you said...if God created the universe, then who created God? Again, this shows an ignorance of theology. This question has been addressed in so many ways. Surely he could have discussed the answers given and critiqued them. No, God created...and He has always been.

 

Now, my goal is not to convince you of anything but my opinion on his book. It became a bestseller, and I am sure that many who disagree came away with a similar feeling.

 

And I am referring to The God Delusion when I speak of his ignorance of theology. I did not say he lied...I simply think he ignored the answers to his created myths about theism, God, and the Bible. Personally, I thought The Blind Watchmaker (parts I read) was quite interesting and challenging.

 

Given your track record, I would expect you to admit it, as I don't think that you are a liar, or have bad intent. But you have responded and yet ignored that glaring fact. I can't help but wonder.

 

 

I would admit it. The ironic thing is that when his book first came out at the library, I did sit down and begin reading it because of his premise and the title. Truthfully, I was not familiar with him all too much prior to that. But after reading much of the book, I did some research and found out who he was. But it was his book among other things that challenged me to research why I believe what I believe more deeply.

 

 

I am sorry I did not respond sooner, but at work, I sometimes simply need to respond without taking too much time. Sorry to keep you wondering.

 

I do hope you are having a good holiday season, in any event.

 

Thank you, I am. And certainly the same to you. At Christmas even foes must become friends. I remember from my history classes about how the Germans and British met at enemy lines during the War for some time of friendship despite their many differences. For what remains is that we are all people living here on earth with many of the same hopes, fears, goals, and expectations.

 

I wish you the best.

[DutchGuy]

Interesting site. I only have one problem with it though.....it shows what countries give what. You assertion that Christians give less that Atheists, (according to this site) doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Or am I missing something?

 

From that site:

 

Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time

 

“The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid….American’s private giving—another 5c/day—is high by international standards but does not close the gap with most other rich countries. Norway gives $1.02/day in public aid and 24c/day in private aid” per person. (These numbers will change of course, year by year, but the point here is that Adelman’s assertion—one that many seem to have—is not quite right.)

[DutchGuy]

I might've jumped the gun there a bit, I'm not even sure if that member's first language is English......I didn't even ask......I deserve a slap on the hand for that one.....

 

Nah, it's Dutch.

But correct me all you want, I know I will if I have the chance.

 

Did I really mess up that badly back there?

Crap.

 

Edit: Descent, doh!

[disgracian]

I wouldn't go that far. But I would assume that all opinions should be respected and people shouldn't be publicy described as ignorant because of them.

Since you agree that opinions can be based on ignorance, why then is it unreasonable to describe a person who holds such beliefs as ignorant? What else are they?

 

FYI, you retreat all the time. I notice that most questions put to you get brushed off dismissively instead of answered. You retreat behind your usual covering fire of glib remarks and over-formatted hyperbole.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

Nah, it's Dutch.

But correct me all you want, I know I will if I have the chance.

 

Did I really mess up that badly back there?

Crap.

 

Edit: Descent, doh!

Well, I sincerely hope that you accept my apologies.....

 

And thanks for looking that up for me!

[Moose]

Since you agree that opinions can be based on ignorance,

Let me make something perfectly clear, I don't believe that ALL opinions are based on ignorance.

why then is it unreasonable to describe a person who holds such beliefs as ignorant?

ESPECIALLY when it comes to a person's personal belief.

FYI, you retreat all the time. I notice that most questions put to you get brushed off dismissively instead of answered.

Really? I'm sorry if you feel that way. Tell you what, why don't you go and compile your list and send it to me......I certainly wouldn't want to keep you in the dark.

[Moai]

Moai, thanks for posting a response.

 

You are welcome.

 

I have not kept count. Guessing that was rhetorical. Personally while you feel it is drivel, I do not. I may not always be correct, but then I expect a correction. Yet simply because it disagrees with your viewpoint or even the evolutionist's viewpoint does not qualify it as drivel.

 

*Sigh* It is a free country, and you can believe as you wish. However, all ideas are not equal, nor are all opinions.

 

Evolutionary biology involves peer review. That fact right there sets it far above Creationism. Not only that, what the Creationists say is evidence against evolution really isn't, has been debunked long ago, or AT BEST is a vapid misunderstanding of the facts. Not only that, Creationists NEVER post positive evidence for their position (there isn't any), they only post red herrings about evolution, as if that makes their position valid. This is a false dilemma fallacy--basically, they hope that people will think that if evolution is wrong that means Biblical Creationism is correct. Fuzzy thinking at best, made even worse by the fact that there isn't any evidence against evolution being a fact. Just like there is no evidence against gravity.

 

Again, then feel free to not tire yourself out. My post was directed at Enema in response to his bringing up evolution as a fact...again. Technically he was moving this thread into the field of evolution. Perhaps I should have ignored the challenge but I felt it needed that correction at least. We have gone over this time and time again as well. No matter what my position is nor yours, evolution is not a fact. In this case, Enema referred to the theory as a fact...this is a contradiction. Using your example of gravity...the theory that explains gravity does not become a fact simply because it is well supported. It is still a theory even it is the best explanation that we currently have.

 

Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains that fact. How many times does this have to be explained? Since you are aware of the TalkOrigins website, why not read their "Evolution is a theory AND a fact FAQ"?

 

The theory we have is one of the most (if not THE most) well-supported in all of science. This is shown time and again given its predictability, and by the evidence.

 

When is the last time a Creationist had a biology paper printed in Nature? Or any peer-reviewed journal for that matter?

 

Okay, I will attempt to make links. However, assertions will be made I am sure by me even if I have no link. I am not perfect. I assume that you are equating evolution with science. Sorry...I and many others will never buy that evolution is the answer to the beginning of the world. While you may scoff at the idea, I firmly believe that one day we will have the answer...from God Himself. I respect that you may not agree with that, and I am not attempting to direct a discussion into that direction.

 

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the beginning of the world. Evolution is what happens after life begins. I think what makes such a discussion so frustrating is that you make comments like the one above that clearly show your lack of understanding of basic science.

 

Yes, the study of evolution is science. The study of theology is not, for example.

 

Your religious position has you rejecting current thinking in biology, geology, and cosmology. Considering your rejection of these disciplines--or at least what the facts discovered using these disciplines suggest--if it were up to you would you not teach this information? Would you vote to end funding to these disciplines?

 

We can go back and forth on this, but that is not my intention. Simply said...there are scientists who do believe that there is a God who created this world, and they do do research with the actual data. And they are not all connected with AiG or similar organizations. And to nitpick your comment..does anywhere include churches, synagogues and mosques?

 

Yes, there are scientists who believe in god. It doesn't follow that they are all Creationists. They aren't. Most Creationists aren't even biologists. Good one on the chruch joke!

 

You try quite well most of the time, but your disbelief in a God does come through at times. I will check out your thread, but I am not interested in engaging in this discussion again. If it is in a different direction...perhaps.

 

My disbelief in god should come out all the time.

 

I am sorry...it wasn't...nor was it intended for that. I never did address the horse issue.

 

To be completely honest it saddens me greatly that someone as honest and forthright as you is a tool of Creationists. If they had an ounce of your honesty we would not be having this discussion. In any event, I appreciate it.

 

So 100% of all scientists are evolutionists who believe that the world began via abiogenesis? No, I think there is debate concerning that.

 

EVOLUTION AND ABIOGENESIS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Evolution is what happens after life begins. Abiogenesis is a possible explanation for how life arose.

 

All those working in abiogenesis accept evolution, but not all those working in evolution accept abiogenesis. There is the panspermia idea too, for example.

 

And while I am sure that with a little searching, quite a few non-evolutionary scientists would be named, I am fairly certain that because they do not believe in evolution...this would disqualify them as serious scientists in your mind. So, I guess that this would be a stalemate issue.

 

Not so. I'll bet you can't find ONE working biologist. But there are physicists and chemists who don't accept evolution as fact. That doesn't mean that what they publish regarding their discipline is gibberish, it just means that their opinion about biology is inane.

 

Apology accepted. Again, please distinguish between the theory that explains the microevolution that we have seen happen. The theory of evolution is not a fact. And again, to be technical, creationism "lost" in the 1920s with the PR success of the media. It was not until a few years later that the schools began publicly teaching it. When it was publicly accepted, then the tide turned to evolution. I am not disagreeing with that, but many thinking people do believe that it is how we began with a God as our Creator.

 

No, Creationism "lost" long before the 1920s. It is still not publicly accepted in the US (which is sad). That is why I am a little adamant about this topic.

 

I need not distinguish between the theory that explains microevolution, as you say, because there is no difference. We have been over this before, and I guess you still don't get it. If you think that there is a difference, post what mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over time. The entire biological community awaits your paper.

 

Accepted. I just thought maybe I missed the official ceremony.

 

It was beautiful. I wept openly.

 

Admittedly at work, I don't have a library, and if I cannot find a link, then I am in trouble. Time restrained me from doing too much searching. This applies to Dawkins' book as well. I guess I am supposed to be working, huh?

 

It should be easy to do, since almost everything he has written is posted on that website. He even posts there himself, which is really cool. I have discussed a few things with him myself. I wouldn't bother trying though, as what you are looking for does not exist.

 

Let me see if I can find something. I know I read how this succession of horses has been shown not to be as smooth as the books say. If you never hear of one, then feel free to say I told you so. It probably means I forgot when I was at the library, but hey, you can gloat.

 

It is not about gloating, or even me being right. I didn't do the research on horse evolution, I just accept what the data suggests.

 

Yeah, I can get on that horse, too.

 

Ha!

 

We have been down this road. I have been meaning to look at the supposed evidences for this on Talkorigins. Let me make a note of this.

 

I hope you give that site a good read. It is an awesome resource, put together by dedicated people for free, just to help educate people.

 

As you are well aware, there are some excellent explanations for this very question. It is an old argument from atheists, and many smarter men than I have answered it. For me to derail this thread further would be fruitless. If you would like to strengthen your views or challenge the, there are some good books that address this.

 

All the ones I have read fail utterly. But that doesn't keep theologists from trying! And they keep trying. If there was a good argument against it, we'd only need one book, no?

 

:laugh: Hello, my name is James, and I am a twit. :laugh:

 

You may have that as your opinion, but while I think many viewpoints are wrong, I do not think of them as twits. Interesting....the definition of twit is... : a silly annoying person : fool .

 

However, remember...name calling is one of those fallacies...no matter how much you think the name fits.

 

Name calling is not a fallacy. The fallacy you refer to is a "ad hominem" which means to attack the person not the argument.

 

Ex: Person A: It would seem, given the evidence, that black holes are common.

 

Person B: Well, you're short, so nobody would listen to what you say.

 

Contrast that with:

 

Person A: If you leave your bedroom window open you'll get the Plague.

 

Person B: You're an idiot.

 

My intention was not to give direct quotes. I don't think I said that. Again, I do not have his book in hand. Maybe if we begin a thread about Dawkins, then further space can be wasted. When I refer to his ignorance about theology, I am talking of his perceptions of God and the Bible. And then he takes his perceptions of how he sees God and wonders how theists can believe such a God. They don't. His view of God is incorrect and certainly is not the one that Christians believe is their Lord and Savior.

 

Again, arguments made by reviewers, none of who have read his book. And they are also wrong. Dawkins (and myself) are aware of the Nicene Creed. What part of that do you disagree with? That Creed is repeated every week in Christian churches around the world. If your church doesn't, bully for you, but if one had to address the different beliefs of each sect the book would be bigger than the full OED.

 

How is his (or my) view of god incorrect?

 

When I read The God Delusion, I was appalled at how one could have such a twisted view of the same God I know and the Bible I read. I am aware that your opinions line up with Dawkins, so my intention is not to call you twisted. And I in no way think Dawkins is stupid or twisted...this is what the book seemed to me. Yet to call God cruel and the Bible immoral when theology has answered many of the points he used to support his premises speaks to me that he makes assertions while not investigating the validity of how theology views them. Many of his thoughts have been discussed by theologians with excellent explanations.

 

I didn't find those explanations excellent. In most cases, they obfuscate the issue, use fallacious reasoning, or are just goofy.

 

Take transubstaniation, for example. Catholics believe that, most Protestants don't. There are stacks and stacks of volumes about it, and yet Protestants do not find that theologically compelling.

 

I remember in one part where he picked some letters written by a president of a historical society(who was a Christian) disagreeing with Einsteins views...then proceeded to imply that ALL Christians were that stupid. The next step was to imply (or even state....without the book I need to be careful with a quote ) that since Christians were this stupid, there cannot be a God. While most serious Christian scholars would disagree with this, Dawkins does not seem to bother checking. If he did, then this would have ruined his fun.

 

It was an example of why he thinks that Christianity is stupid. If he took the time to address everything different Christians believe, you couldn't pick the book up.

 

Again, he creates many straw man arguments by misrepresenting the very view he is attacking. If he had presented his caricature of God and His people to some educated theologians...and then rewriting it with intelligent arguments, his premise would have seemed more believable to those who did believe in a God. While I know that many who already agreed with him found this book entertaining and informative, those of us who disagree cannot find it fairly written.

 

Yes, that is the argument against his book, and it is telling that such is the best that theologians can do. I have read the book a few times, and I did not find his description a caricature in the least. Show that no Christians believe what he repeats in his book and he'll be the first to admit his error. I will, too.

 

From what I read, one of his main strong arguments for there being no God is similar to what you said...if God created the universe, then who created God? Again, this shows an ignorance of theology. This question has been addressed in so many ways. Surely he could have discussed the answers given and critiqued them. No, God created...and He has always been.

 

Which cannot be, and that is the point. The theology in question is illogical and bad, regardless of how many times it is repeated. In fact, Dawkins is well aware of this argument and he shows it to be fallacious. It is as if you are saying that in rejecting the explanation he doesn't understand it, and that is not so.

 

Now, my goal is not to convince you of anything but my opinion on his book. It became a bestseller, and I am sure that many who disagree came away with a similar feeling.

 

And my only point is that this criticism is generally raised by people who haven't read the book.

 

And I am referring to The God Delusion when I speak of his ignorance of theology. I did not say he lied...I simply think he ignored the answers to his created myths about theism, God, and the Bible. Personally, I thought The Blind Watchmaker (parts I read) was quite interesting and challenging.

 

Point to one myth in the book regarding god-belief.

 

I would admit it. The ironic thing is that when his book first came out at the library, I did sit down and begin reading it because of his premise and the title. Truthfully, I was not familiar with him all too much prior to that. But after reading much of the book, I did some research and found out who he was. But it was his book among other things that challenged me to research why I believe what I believe more deeply.

 

Fine, but I await an example.

 

I am sorry I did not respond sooner, but at work, I sometimes simply need to respond without taking too much time. Sorry to keep you wondering.

 

No problem!

 

Thank you, I am. And certainly the same to you. At Christmas even foes must become friends. I remember from my history classes about how the Germans and British met at enemy lines during the War for some time of friendship despite their many differences. For what remains is that we are all people living here on earth with many of the same hopes, fears, goals, and expectations.

 

I wish you the best.

 

Thank you for your response and good wishes.

[Moai]

Cha-Ching! Even my kids were like, "what are you looking at??".....Thank you so much for taking the time to answer what seems to be elementary to you. That must've been boring!!! But it really did cause my eyes to open wide.....and I now have a, "slanted forehead" if you know what I mean.....lol

 

Ha!

 

It wasn't boring at all. I appreciate your approach to the question.

 

I'm going to have to digest this more.You know, I felt really bad about that comment after I got to thinking about it.......

 

I wouldn't. You scored a rhetorical point, it was funny, and it wasn't out of line. I got a kick out of it anyway!

 

I might've jumped the gun there a bit, I'm not even sure if that member's first language is English......I didn't even ask......I deserve a slap on the hand for that one.....:oI say we do one better and get together IRL......go confuse the masses even MORE!!

 

Anytime, amigo! I'll bring the bottle, you bring the glasses!

 

I got the impression that maybe English wasn't the first language of not only the poster to whom you responded, but another as well. Hard to tell, sometimes.

[DutchGuy]

Well, I sincerely hope that you accept my apologies.....

 

And thanks for looking that up for me!

 

Ofcourse... all in good fun, right?

[JamesM]

Moai, I will respond to a couple things from your response. My fear is as I know it is yours....is that by you and I writing letters here, we will derail and end this thread. But I have a couple of comments to make.

 

Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains that fact. How many times does this have to be explained?

 

I have this one well understood...have no fear. No more explanations needed. What irritates me is similar to what irritates you when I speak of evolution as how the world began....stating that evolution is a fact and equating its to meaning that evolution is no longer theory, and therefore is somehow written in stone...this is not correct for even those who believe it wholeheartedly. By me making that statement every time I see it written in no way means that I think it is invalidated because it is a theory. So, when Enema says that the ToE (as he abbreviated it) is a fact because we have mountains of evidence for it, then I felt the need to correct that. Personally, I felt that you would understand that as you are a stickler for such inaccuracies. While one can say that we have much evidence to support the theory of relativity, we cannot then call it a fact.

 

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the beginning of the world. Evolution is what happens after life begins. I think what makes such a discussion so frustrating is that you make comments like the one above that clearly show your lack of understanding of basic science.

 

*sigh* I have explained this to you over and over again that I do know the difference. In fact, I think if you look at my recent posts on this thread, I have made the distinction a number of times. When I lump these together, it is simply sloppy typing on my part as I hurry to finish a post before i get back to my work. I apologize because I DO know how this so irritates you. The last thing I want to do is cause you frustration.

 

Your religious position has you rejecting current thinking in biology, geology, and cosmology.

 

No, it has me questioning the current thinking regarding the evolution of all species and the thought that life began via abiogenesis. Outside of that I am fascinated by much science. I have to be....my father is a retired biochemist, while my brother is a chemistry and physics teacher.

 

To be completely honest it saddens me greatly that someone as honest and forthright as you is a tool of Creationists.

 

Oh don't be sad! I volunteered, I was not forced.

 

I need not distinguish between the theory that explains microevolution, as you say, because there is no difference. We have been over this before, and I guess you still don't get it.

 

I love how you say "you don't get it." fact is...I do realize well your positions. Simply because I do not agree, does not mean I don't get what you are saying. What you and others have done is say that we can use the mechanism that is used for adaptations/mutations within a species to show how species can change into new species. These changes must accumulate over millions of years to become new species. This is one big area where evidence is interpreted to fit the evolutionary theory. This assumption has not been seen, so it cannot be considered fact.

 

I hope you give that site a good read. It is an awesome resource, put together by dedicated people for free, just to help educate people

 

It has been helpful in explaining the views of the theory of evolution...and abiogenesis.

 

Name calling is not a fallacy.

 

Yea, whatever. It still is not conducive to a constructive debate.

 

How is his (or my) view of god incorrect?

 

Huh? You don't believe there is one. I disagree.

 

It was an example of why he thinks that Christianity is stupid.

 

What I found discouraging is that he takes a view that is not widespread and then proceeds to use it on all Christians. What he said may have been true for some, but certainly not for all.

 

Show that no Christians believe what he repeats in his book and he'll be the first to admit his error.

 

No, he should use beliefs that all/most Christians believe as support for his premise....not beliefs that are shared by a few. Did you know that there are "Christians" that believe God gives them the power to survive snake bites? Should this recklessness be used to show the stupidity of all Christians? No. And what he does is further state because of that stupidity, there cannot be a God.

 

Okay, enough. I apologize for the things I did not give you the needed evidence for, but I am thinking that this will only mean more derailments here.

 

As I am at work again, no, I don't have anything on horses. Fact is because of the season, I doubt I will get a chance to get back to the library for awhile. So for now, I will simply concede that I am wrong based on forfeiture. (Ouch, that hurt! )

 

Again the best to you.

[Rooster_DAR]

I would tend to think the whales provide suffient evidence that evolution is a fact, there are many other transitions but whales are particularly interesting.

 

MOAI

 

Are you familiar with the recent findings of Tiktaalik? As I understand this creature is slated as a possibly critical finding in proof of mammal transition.

 

Cheers!

[NoIDidn't]

English is my main and first language. I just have trouble following a conversation where so many strawman arguments are used, and chose not to continue.

 

I have no grudge with anyone here, even when we disagree. But I don't like to just disappear without saying why.

 

I respect the right of anyone to believe as they choose. Maybe I am wrong for expecting the same respect from others that may believe differently from myself.

 

I only commented to add to the conversation, not debate my view. Sorry if my input was disappointing that expectation.

 

Be that as it may, I hope everyone is enjoying the season - whether they celebrate it or not.

[Enema]

So, when Enema says that the ToE is a fact because we have mountains of evidence for it, then I felt the need to correct that. Personally, I felt that you would understand that as you are a stickler for such inaccuracies. While one can say that we have much evidence to support the theory of relativity, we cannot then call it a fact.

 

To quote myself: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1454998&postcount=208

 

"We have mountains of evidence and the ToE is accepted as fact by any biologist."

 

I did not say that the ToE is accepted as fact because of the mountains of evidence.

 

Do not misquote me because you have difficulty grasping the theory:fact relationship.

[NoIDidn't]

To quote myself: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1454998&postcount=208

 

"We have mountains of evidence and the ToE is accepted as fact by any biologist."

 

I did not say that the ToE is accepted as fact because of the mountains of evidence.

 

Do not misquote me because you have difficulty grasping the theory:fact relationship.

 

I fail to see the difference in the statements. Just for clarification, are you saying that the "mountains of evidence" support the ToE? What exactly is the theory:fact relationship in layman terms? For example, what is the fact:theory relationship in the equation 1+1=2? I'm not kidding, I am really trying to understand the "relationship" of theory to fact that you reference.

 

Sorry for the TJ.

[Moai]

Moai, I will respond to a couple things from your response. My fear is as I know it is yours....is that by you and I writing letters here, we will derail and end this thread. But I have a couple of comments to make.

 

Fire away.

 

I have this one well understood...have no fear. No more explanations needed. What irritates me is similar to what irritates you when I speak of evolution as how the world began....stating that evolution is a fact and equating its to meaning that evolution is no longer theory, and therefore is somehow written in stone...this is not correct for even those who believe it wholeheartedly.

 

Obviously, by this very paragraph, you don't get it. Evolution will always be BOTH a theory AND a fact. The theory we have is so good and explains so well it may as well be written in stone. The only debate (which goes on vigorously) is at the edges--as is it in all areas of science.

 

Just as relativity is written in stone (do you dispute that e=mc^2?) so it is with our current model of evolution.

 

By me making that statement every time I see it written in no way means that I think it is invalidated because it is a theory. So, when Enema says that the ToE (as he abbreviated it) is a fact because we have mountains of evidence for it, then I felt the need to correct that. Personally, I felt that you would understand that as you are a stickler for such inaccuracies. While one can say that we have much evidence to support the theory of relativity, we cannot then call it a fact.

 

Evolution does have mountains of evidence for it. Just like gravity has mountains of evidence for it. It is observable, both directly and indirectly. The THEORY we have is what we use to MAKE SENSE of those facts. Both relativity and our evolutionary model have predictive value. It is seen time and again.

 

*sigh* I have explained this to you over and over again that I do know the difference. In fact, I think if you look at my recent posts on this thread, I have made the distinction a number of times. When I lump these together, it is simply sloppy typing on my part as I hurry to finish a post before i get back to my work. I apologize because I DO know how this so irritates you. The last thing I want to do is cause you frustration.

 

If you made a distinction, I apologize.

 

No, it has me questioning the current thinking regarding the evolution of all species and the thought that life began via abiogenesis. Outside of that I am fascinated by much science. I have to be....my father is a retired biochemist, while my brother is a chemistry and physics teacher.

 

Evolution is why we have all the species we do around us, and the current most popular explanation for life arising is abiogenesis. But that area in its infancy, so we are still working things out. I happen to think that is the answer (we have created self-replicating RNA in a lab), but i accept that provisionally. Actually, I accept everything provisionally, but such is a sliding scale, with what my name is on one side (virtually no doubt) to dark matter on the other (no idea what is going on and little or no understanding). You could put our evolutionary model close to my name, and abiogenesis to the right of the middle.

 

Oh don't be sad! I volunteered, I was not forced.

 

Depends on what you mean by force. I think that your religious onvictions force you to believe this stuff. And it does make me sad

 

I love how you say "you don't get it." fact is...I do realize well your positions. Simply because I do not agree, does not mean I don't get what you are saying. What you and others have done is say that we can use the mechanism that is used for adaptations/mutations within a species to show how species can change into new species. These changes must accumulate over millions of years to become new species. This is one big area where evidence is interpreted to fit the evolutionary theory. This assumption has not been seen, so it cannot be considered fact.

 

Again, in your paragraph above you demonstrate that you don't, in fact, get it. We see speciation events ALL THE TIME. I referred to one in a post to Moose regarding frogs.

 

Here is a list of observed speciation events, which is by no means exhaustive:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

A complete list of speciation events would fill an encyclopedia.

 

So, either these scientists are lying, you were unaware of their existence and so misspoke, or your Creationist handlers lied to you and you didn't bother to check it out. I got those links in about two seconds, by the way.

 

It has been helpful in explaining the views of the theory of evolution...and abiogenesis.

 

Yea, whatever. It still is not conducive to a constructive debate.

 

Perhaps not.

 

Huh? You don't believe there is one. I disagree.

 

Yes, and I reject the idea based on the description I get from believers--believers like you, for example. I didn't make up Christianity. There's a book about it somewhere, right?

 

What I found discouraging is that he takes a view that is not widespread and then proceeds to use it on all Christians. What he said may have been true for some, but certainly not for all.

 

Really? Belief in the Nicene Creed is not widespread? I am stunned.

 

No, he should use beliefs that all/most Christians believe as support for his premise....not beliefs that are shared by a few. Did you know that there are "Christians" that believe God gives them the power to survive snake bites? Should this recklessness be used to show the stupidity of all Christians? No. And what he does is further state because of that stupidity, there cannot be a God.

 

Yes, I know that, and those aren't the ones Dawkins describes in his book. Please post one particular point that Dawkins illustrates with which you disagree, and show that it isn't popular.

 

Okay, enough. I apologize for the things I did not give you the needed evidence for, but I am thinking that this will only mean more derailments here.

 

Accepted.

 

As I am at work again, no, I don't have anything on horses. Fact is because of the season, I doubt I will get a chance to get back to the library for awhile. So for now, I will simply concede that I am wrong based on forfeiture. (Ouch, that hurt! )

 

Again the best to you.

 

And my best to you.

[Moai]

I fail to see the difference in the statements. Just for clarification' date=' are you saying that the "mountains of evidence" [b']support[/b] the ToE? What exactly is the theory:fact relationship in layman terms? For example, what is the fact:theory relationship in the equation 1+1=2? I'm not kidding, I am really trying to understand the "relationship" of theory to fact that you reference.

 

Sorry for the TJ.

 

Here you go:

 

A fact is a phenomenon that we observe in the natural world. Rain, gravity, flight, erosion, and evolution are all examples of facts in the world around us.

 

In order to explain how these phenomena operate, we develop a theory on how things work.

 

Evolution, simply stated, goes like this: "Species change over time." That's it. How they change, what makes them change, etc. is what the Theory of Evolution explains.

 

Theories explain facts.

[FleshNBones]

Here you go:

 

A fact is a phenomenon that we observe in the natural world. Rain, gravity, flight, erosion, and evolution are all examples of facts in the world around us.

 

In order to explain how these phenomena operate, we develop a theory on how things work.

 

Evolution, simply stated, goes like this: "Species change over time." That's it. How they change, what makes them change, etc. is what the Theory of Evolution explains.

 

Theories explain facts.

If there is no life, there is no evolution. I can't believe you are comparing it to gravity.

 

Maybe if you would talk about the Big Bang Theory, we might find out why evolutionists don't like it.

[NoIDidn't]

Here you go:

 

A fact is a phenomenon that we observe in the natural world. Rain, gravity, flight, erosion, and evolution are all examples of facts in the world around us.

 

In order to explain how these phenomena operate, we develop a theory on how things work.

 

Evolution, simply stated, goes like this: "Species change over time." That's it. How they change, what makes them change, etc. is what the Theory of Evolution explains.

 

Theories explain facts.

 

Do theories really explain facts, or do they attempt to explain facts? I mean, based on the equation that I listed, what is the theory that you would use to explain 1+1=2?

 

I don't think that we need to "develop a theory" on how Rain occurs. Meteorologists don't have theories about that. They actually have facts that they have observed. Or can someone theorize about what rain is? Would that even be necessary? Not trying to be snarky. It just doesn't seem that the examples you used are valid in the context that you used them in.

 

I have no issues with Evolution. Its only a theory, not a fact. It would seem then that the relationship between a theory and a fact is this: theories are debatable, facts are not. Facts are used to support theories, but that does not prove the theory to be a fact. Right?

 

It makes perfect sense to hear a person say "I have a theory". It doesn't make much sense to hear someone say "I have a fact" when they are, in fact, theorizing the facts, not the other way around. Right?

[Geishawhelk]

"Round... like a circle in a spiral like a wheel within a wheel

Never ending on beginning on an ever-spinning reel

Like a snowball down a mountain or a carnival balloon

Like a carousel that's turning running rings around the moon

Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes on its face

And the world is like an apple spinning silently in space

Like the circles that you find In the windmills of your mind....

 

Like a tunnel that you follow to a tunnel of its own

Down a hollow to a cavern where the sun has never shone

Like a door that keeps revolving in a half-forgotten dream

Like the ripples from a pebble someone tosses in a stream

Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes on its face

And the world is like an apple spinning silently in space

Like the circles that you find

In the windmills of your mind

 

..... Like a circle in a spiral

Like a wheel within a wheel

Never ending or beginning

On an ever-spinning reel

As the images unwind

Like the circles that you find

In the windmills of your mind"

 

(Windmills of your Mind, Noel Harrison, from 'The Thomas crown Affair')

 

 

I feel dizzy just trying to keep up with you all!

[lonelybird]

I have a good word contribute to this community, well, I borrowed from others

 

You become what you believe.

 

Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits. Proverbs 18:21

[Geishawhelk]

You become what you believe.

 

Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits. Proverbs 18:21

 

"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts; with our thoughts, we make the world."

 

I think it's possible we're speaking as one, lonelyBird....!

[lonelybird]

I think it's possible we're speaking as one, lonelyBird....!

really? repeat will increase impression for those who read, a good thing

[Geishawhelk]

Goodness, so many posts disappeared! This is tangible and demonstrable evidence of the ephemeral nature of words, opinions and relevance....

All gone....

Nothing is permanent, everything is transitory....and just how much does it all really matter in the end anyway?

 

With Love and much Metta to all....

[Moai]

If there is no life, there is no evolution. I can't believe you are comparing it to gravity.

 

Why wouldn't I compare it to gravity? Evolution is an observable phenomena, just like gravity. The difference is that we can explain evolution, we cannot explain gravity.

 

Do you dispute gravity? Do you think gravity is a supernatural force, considering that we cannot explain it?

 

Lastly, without matter, we wouldn't have gravity.

 

Maybe if you would talk about the Big Bang Theory, we might find out why evolutionists don't like it.

 

This could quite possibly be the most ignorant thing I have ever read on these forums.

 

"Evolutionists" are concerned with biology, not cosmology. The Big Bang theory is currently the most popular explanation we have for the state the Universe is in at the moment (and we get more evidence all the time). I am not aware of any biologists who reject it--not that it would matter. I am also not aware of any cosmologists who reject it.

 

Maybe if you would read a science book we could find out why you don't like it.

[Moai]

Do theories really explain facts' date=' or do they attempt to explain facts? I mean, based on the equation that I listed, what is the theory that you would use to explain 1+1=2?[/quote']

 

I am not a theoretical mathematician. Given that you have a computer at your disposal, I am sure you could look that up for yourself if you are so inclined.

 

I don't think that we need to "develop a theory" on how Rain occurs. Meteorologists don't have theories about that.

 

Yes, they do. It is just well-explained, and you don't hear about it because weather isn't controversial, nor does it challenge the mythic beliefs of some people.

 

Our understanding of weather (which is a theory) shows that the Flood is impossible, by the way.

 

They actually have facts that they have observed. Or can someone theorize about what rain is? Would that even be necessary? Not trying to be snarky. It just doesn't seem that the examples you used are valid in the context that you used them in.

 

They don't seem that way because you don't understand it. Evolution is a fact that is observed. Evolution is a process made up of different mechanisms, like natural selection and genetic drift.

 

Have you studied meteorology? It is more complex than you give it credit for. We fly into hurricanes in hopes of getting a better idea of why and how they form, for example.

 

Look at earthquakes. Earthquakes are well known, yet we don't know what triggers them. Are there warning signs? Would it be possible to set them off intentionally, in hopes of minimizing damage? There are hypotheses and vigorous debate about these things.

 

I have no issues with Evolution. Its only a theory, not a fact.

 

Nope. It is both.

 

It would seem then that the relationship between a theory and a fact is this: theories are debatable, facts are not. Facts are used to support theories but that does not prove the theory to be a fact. Right?

 

Yep.

 

It makes perfect sense to hear a person say "I have a theory". It doesn't make much sense to hear someone say "I have a fact" when they are, in fact, theorizing the facts, not the other way around. Right?

 

The way that people use the word "theory" in a colloquial sense is not the same way it is used in science. In popular terms, a theory is about the same as a guess. In science, it is not a guess at all. It is an explanation of a phenomena based on evidence and experimentation.