evolution or creation? lets talk...

by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex
    BigTex- the facts do not prove evolution

    Have you ever been embarassed for someone? I mean, when you see they've really stepped in it but they don't realize? I do not see a lot to work with here. Oh wait, I'm a sheep and simply following others.

    i don`t feel `picked on, no more than any other crea, like TopHat, so don`t try and make me out to be the `poor little victim`,

    Nor was I trying to. Once again you give me motives and thoughts that I did not have. That you keep displaying such defensiveness and sensitivity frankly says more about you than it does the subject at hand or those who have taken the opposing view. I see more insults coming from you than I see directed toward you.

    How can i provide `facts` if what i believe is the genesis account of creation? What sort of `facts` do you want?

    Again, I'll repeat something I've mentioned twice before:

    A challenge for the creationists: Present two facts, with supporting references, that give strong evidence in favor of special creation

    I'll repeat again: I was curious as to whether you had the ability to respond to Alan's question. You've stated your belief, and I accept that. I'm not "wanting" anything from you. I stated I was curious, in an abstract objective fashionl, and yet you seem determined to somehow "get the last word" with me. I'm not sure why, but you seem to be taking this thread rather personally.

    Little Toe was not directing the word `wanker` at me, re-read, he has too many manner`s to do that.

    >sigh<

    Again please read what I actually post.

    What I posted about Little Toe was my attempt at humor. I've known him for 3 years and that comment was directed at him. I'm begining to understand the frustration others feel in this thread. Do you actually stop and consider a post before you respond?

    You`ve proven that you are just a little sheep that follows the crowd, you didn`t even have the courage to post until you were challenged.

    Interesting psychology. Now say something bad about my mother. That'll be sure to get a rise out of me, right?

    This is not a subject about which I feel passionate about (okay poor grammar). As I indicated in my first post, I approached this thread with the idea that I was ignorant of either side. I've done so many times before as it often gives an indication of peoples' motivations and abilities to defend their position.

    In all candor, reading this thread reminds me of the thread with thirdwitness, (or back in the old days You_Know). When a position is challenged by logic, reason and fact, rather than actually engaging in a discussion with an interchange of ideas and thoughts, some are so insecure they would rather resort to obfuscation and insults.

    dido I have not said one insulting thing to you. I have tried in my posts to treat you with respect. That you resort to insulting me tells me a lot about what kind of person you are.

    And when exactly did you "challenge" me? You, again, make no sense. I "didn't even the courage to post until [I] were challenged"? When and how did you challenge me that caused me to make my first post? When and how did I display any fear of you, or anything about you for that matter? When and how did I display any fear of this subject?

    You seem determined, and paranoid enough, to put anyone and everyone who does not agree with every word, every comma you say, into an enemy. That not being enough, you then want to demonize and impute motives, thoughts and feelings where there are none.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Chris,

    What I posted about Little Toe was my attempt at humor. I've known him for 3 years and that comment was directed at him. I'm begining to understand the frustration others feel in this thread. Do you actually stop and consider a post before you respond?

    There is a place in digital space where banging ones head against an agenda begins to lose its appeal. Trying to explain your motives to the Widow Dido and her Topsy Hatted appendage is of little value. They are not interested at all. They are here to flame and snigger. The last thing on their minds is learning *anything* about *anything*.

    LittleToe, in his frequent role as Uncle Knight of Reason , has tried his best to build a bridge of kindness between the opposing factions, but agendas are always far more important on these Board's than reason, as he has found out - again. They are its gas, and generate most of its bandwidth.

    Over the years I have found that debates on this Board are either worthy of involvement when an hidden agenda is not present, a rare occurrence, or worthy only of ad hominem when a malevolent agenda is present. I am a great believer in ad hominem, as I am in critical thinking. They both deserve a place in on-line debates, though ad homimen is imho a far more honest position when dealing with admitted troublemakers as it strips away the onion skin of deceit much more quickly than all the logic in ancient Greece.

    Take care BigTex and kind regards to the winsome half.

    HS

  • Mysterious
    Mysterious
    My idea of a creator has nothing to do with religion, the way i see him/ it/(not her) is an invisible force, with energy to create. The only reason i sort of believe the genesis account is because it is the closest to what i can explanation as to how we are here

    What the hell stops god from being female? Misogynistic views of women throughout history? I would be more inclined to accept that god is a different entity and thus does not conform to human standards of gender, but not that god could possibly be male and note female. Especially given that all human life begins in the womb as female and then differentiates into male that would seem to be the basis orgin and template of life.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Steve said:

    : AlanF, have you read any papers presented by Michael Oard and his description of ice age formation, and the lack of water? I've just started reading some of his papers.

    I certainly have. I have all of his monographs. Typical YEC rationalizations, all.

    AlanF

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    This thread is going so fast now I can't keep up! Also, for the past two mornings in England (i.e. Saturday and Sunday) I couldn't get on JWD. Anyone else experiencing problems? The thing is, Simon is at home at the weekend so he could be tweeking the site (?) during English a.m. time.

    OK, Dido said:

    I accept the bible because there is no better explanation.

    Right. I should say this is the whole crux of the matter because the majority (all?) of the creationists here are Christian. They literally believe in the God of the Bible and that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible is their comfort; their rock - as it was once mine for nigh on two decades.

    The point is, archaeologists, historians and scientists have produced reams of evidence showing that the scriptures weren't written by whom they are said to be written, they weren't written at the time they were said to be written, the events contained therein, such as the mass exodus of the Jews out of Egypt, Joshua's conquest of Canaan, David and Solomon's vast empire, etc., NEVER happened. The historicity of Jesus is in serious doubt, the gospels weren't written at the time Christ was supposed to exist and nor were they written by the people given the credit (in fact Professor Randel Helms supplies convincing evidence that Luke, for example, was a woman), the Bible was put together by the early church fathers and it was they who said the book was of divine origin (if one was to look up who the church fathers were one would find they were a most inept bunch full of ignorance and superstition. To quote Prof. Samuel Davidson in The Canon of the Bible: "No analysis of their authenticity or genuineness (of the Bible canon) was seriously attempted...............Their decisions were much more the result of pious feelings, biased by theological speculations of the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgement). Tertullian believed in the fable of the phoenix and Origen, too, defended it; Clement of Rome thought it had an actual existence and asserted it was typical of the resurrection; Clement of Alexandria said that hail storms, tempests and plagues were caused by demons; Origen said the sun, moon and stars were living creatures, endowed with reason and free will - and occasionally inclined to sin!

    I could go on and on about the idiots who put the Bible together (by the way, if anyone objected at the time they were garrotted - a nice way to get what you want, eh!) - essentially, Iraeneus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, who laid the foundation. So, we have SO MUCH proof that the Bible is false, is not of divine origin and was put together by a bunch of ignorant, superstitious and unlearned men, the authors of both the Old and New Testaments were NOT who they are thought to be and were NOT written at the time they were said to be. To ignore such evidence is, well, leaving oneself open to contempt (not insults!).

    What is required is a thorough reading of the evidence provided by the leading scholars in their fields, which is what I have done. I'm sorry to say (should I really be apologising?) that one MUST look outside of the Bible to gain the truth. I have read the Bible from cover to cover a full three times. Even after leaving the JWs I defended it against ancient bible history scholars. However, under the weight of so much evidence to the contrary - provided me respectfully and considerately - I could no longer bury my head in the sand.

    Once the Bible was well and truly debunked, which meant Judaism, Christianity and Islam were also debunked, I turned my attention to studying evolution. I, too, have the book The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. He writes beautifully, but still some of it goes right over my head - but that's no surprise. This type of book has to be read and re-read to take in fully what it all really means - and which is no different to my reading the BIble a full three times to try and get a better understanding of it!

    If there is a God, I say 'Thank God for Richard Dawkins'. His latest work, The God Delusion should be read by everyone. We need people like him who are willing to stand up, speak out and provide us with an alternative. An alternative, I hasten to add, which is basically flawless (ok, science may prove that some of our evolutionarty beliefs at the present may change over time, but the basic premise is SOUND).

    I also think (some) people should be aware of the difference in meaning of theory. We all know what the general everyday use of it is, but to a scientist talking about evolutionary theory he is, actually, talking about FACT! This is completely different from a hypothesis - which is what the creationists work from.

    No doubt Dido, Little Toe and I are in for some interesting discussion on curry night - but I'm not going to force the issue.

    For what it's worth, I think this thread has been of immense help to many. It certainly has to me.

    Ian

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Steve

    when a species can only interbreed, its definition as a separate species is unarguable.

    So it is arguable that a wolf, a coyote, and a poodle are the same species?

  • zagor
    zagor

    Ian I can agree with a number of your arguments, but have to say that to me Randel Helms reads like Dan Brown, and historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is not in doubt by most serious scholars as there are enough of extra-biblical references to his existence.

    For example, in Book 1, chapter 15 of his Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus (ca 55-ca. 120 CE), says of the Christians:

    Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started), but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.

    ... Hence, confirming his existence. Whoever he was, an Indian-like guru, revolutionary, "bio-energy healer", etc. I'm satisfied that he did exist and was removed by Roman authorities for sedition.

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    Dansk: Put aside the Bible and an Intelligent Creator still makes more sense to me.

    For those who feel life appeared as a one celled ameba...How did it sustain life after that. You know...nourishment?

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    Hi Zagor:

    there are enough of extra-biblical references to his existence.

    Well, I don't know of them - but if you give me the references I'll check.

    For example, in Book 1, chapter 15 of his Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus (ca 55-ca. 120 CE), says of the Christians:

    Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started), but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.

    ... Hence, confirming his existence.

    Sorry, but this does NOT confirm Jesus' existence! It merely proves that there were people who believed in Christ at that time. How many of them had actually met him? Because a religion has a said originator doesn't mean the said person existed or was a prophet - or a Messiah.

    Ian

  • zagor
    zagor
    For those who feel life appeared as a one celled ameba...How did it sustain life after that. You know...nourishment?

    So what do amebas eat today that wasn't available back then??!!??

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit