After many debates with the likes of jmog & O-trap, I've learned that I need to be more patient and not so quick to jump to being condescending. This post is a serious challenge for me to address without resorting to my old ways, but I'll do my best!!

OSH;646000 wrote:It does hold some validity to it (the faith to not believe in God as the faith to believe in God).

OSH;646000 wrote: Look at how many times this theory of evolution has changed. Which one should one believe and have faith in?

You say change, but you must not understand how science works. As new knowledge comes into existence, that new data is then incorporated into the old for a more precise view of that situation.
What I find is funny is, the process that the Theory of Evolution goes through is no different than any other scientific process, but because it differs to your world view, you have a problem with it. Do you realize that without this process, I could not be sitting here replying to you from my laptop on my couch and you wouldn't be able to reply from your phone?

OSH;646000 wrote:That is, have faith that that theory is true meaning that a Creator is not true. If an evolution theory is true, that means the possibility there is no God, which could mean that there is no one way to get to Heaven (Christian belief). If an evolution theory is not true, that means the possibility of a God, which could mean that there is only one way to get to Heaven (Christian belief). How is that not having faith? Especially with as often as what science changes?

The major flaw in your view is that the two are mutually exclusive. There have been several religious organizations (Catholics being one of the major ones) that have already accepted evolution

OSH;646000 wrote: Just look at the Zodiac for example. There are many people that had faith in the astrology/astronomy, which is a science, that are now a different "sign" than they were before. Yes, it's not necessarily affecting Americans, but it does affect some people. So what about those who happened to live by those other signs for many years...they had the faith that the sciences revealed something about their life and had a direction for it -- only to be wronged how many years later?

Please tell me you didn't just lump astrology & astronomy in the same boat? It was an astronomer that pointed out that the signs were wrong and have been wrong for some time now, and he did this with science! The astrologers were the ones that preyed on peoples fears much the same way religion does!

dlazz;646029 wrote:Apparently they didn't teach English in your school.

Damn Droid types what it wants in the car on a touch screen in a snowstorm

Gblock;646007 wrote:My original question was about origin of life not evolution. That was a digression on my part...I personally believe in god and evolution as his design...I was just saying that evolution is not taught as a fact but rather a theory it has never been proven

And you'd be wrong. You can continue to use the layman's term for theory, but the scientific community has a pretty strong grasp of the definition and that's all that matters!

DeyDurkie5;646026 wrote:so much to sort through that I don't even have time...as far as otraps response to mine, when i get time i'll come back and answer that. As far as someone who said religion was supposed to be a once a week thing, what if religion and the idea of gathering to believe in something was just jesus' way of making a living? I mean hell, if people believed me that I performed miracles and parted seas and all that, why wouldn't I tell people hey for this price you can come follow me around and listen to what I say? I mean I know that's an ignorant way of thinking, but I couldn't word it better seeing as I'm drinking. I feel like this is a conversation to be had over a brew

I agree, and would be more than happy to meet sometime for a few and discuss this wonderful topic!!

What's ur def of a theory......pretty strong grasp?...strong to quite strong LOL

Gblock;646070 wrote:What's ur def of a theory......pretty strong grasp?...strong to quite strong LOL

Look up Webster's definition. The first one will more than likely be the Scientific definition while the subsequent ones will be layman's

Bigred1995;646086 wrote:Look up Webster's definition. The first one will more than likely be the Scientific definition while the subsequent ones will be layman's

I know the definition or at least also have a pretty strong grasp

Bigred1995;646043 wrote:You say change, but you must not understand how science works. As new knowledge comes into existence, that new data is then incorporated into the old for a more precise view of that situation.

I know how science works. I studied pre-med for a bit. I enjoy science.

This "as new knowledge comes into existence...incorporated into the old...more precise view..." doesn't really hold a lot of merit. Some people hold these theories as gospel (truth), that the "truth" changes so often. So which one do we believe? Which one do we hold to have validity? How do you tell those dead people that their "truth" is, in fact, false?

Bigred1995;646043 wrote:What I find is funny is, the process that the Theory of Evolution goes through is no different than any other scientific process, but because it differs to your world view, you have a problem with it.

How do you know what my world view is? I haven't stated anything of my world view.

Bigred1995;646043 wrote:Please tell me you didn't just lump astrology & astronomy in the same boat? It was an astronomer that pointed out that the signs were wrong and have been wrong for some time now, and he did this with science! The astrologers were the ones that preyed on peoples fears much the same way religion does!

Look at the etymology of astrology...it comes from "astronomy" -- or "celestial body" and "study of." That's why I put it in there like I did.

U graduate steubenville big red 1995?....you might no my ex wife

OSH;646122 wrote:I know how science works. I studied pre-med for a bit. I enjoy science.

Yeah and I know how psychology works because I studied psychology a bit. I enjoy psychology!

OSH;646122 wrote: This "as new knowledge comes into existence...incorporated into the old...more precise view..." doesn't really hold a lot of merit. Some people hold these theories as gospel (truth), that the "truth" changes so often. So which one do we believe? Which one do we hold to have validity? How do you tell those dead people that their "truth" is, in fact, false?

We don't! it's not like someone comes along with a new theory and everyone accepts it. The new idea goes through a process before it's accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community! How do you tell the people that died before it was know the world is round, that the world is indeed round?

OSH;646122 wrote: How do you know what my world view is? I haven't stated anything of my world view.

Look at the etymology of astrology...it comes from "astronomy" -- or "celestial body" and "study of." That's why I put it in there like I did.

Look at the etymology of Chemistry! Now go tell jmog that his profession is no different than alchemy! Good luck with that!

Gblock;646124 wrote:U graduate steubenville big red 1995?....you might no my ex wife

Yes, pm me her name and I'll tell you if I know here.

Bigred1995;646060 wrote:I agree, and would be more than happy to meet sometime for a few and discuss this wonderful topic!!

are you buying? I'll gladly get drunk on your tab and talk about fake jesus'

DeyDurkie5;646178 wrote:are you buying? I'll gladly get drunk on your tab and talk about fake jesus'

LOL, it depends, if I get this job in the 'Burgh, then yes, i'll buy! The thing is, unlike you, I think Jesus is real, I just don't think he performed miracles.

Bigred1995;646190 wrote:LOL, it depends, if I get this job in the 'Burgh, then yes, i'll buy! The thing is, unlike you, I think Jesus is real, I just don't think he performed miracles.

I actually agree with you on that one, I shouldn't have called him "fake jesus," more like "fraud jesus"

SMH

Bigred1995;646043 wrote:After many debates with the likes of jmog & O-trap, I've learned that I need to be more patient and not so quick to jump to being condescending. This post is a serious challenge for me to address without resorting to my old ways, but I'll do my best!!

In the words of JP Moreland, "As beings who are charged with cognitive responsibility, it is our duty to treat equals equally and unequals unequally."

Treat statements as fairly as you can. I tend to wash my hands of the evolutionary debate, and actually am an Old Earth, macro-evolutionary theist.

Bigred1995;645998 wrote:The part in bold tells me you know absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution! The reason it doesn't have a solid explanation about, "how we got here" is because it doesn't attempt too, and wasn't meant too! And the reason it has holes is because Darwin (at least the one I'm talking about) came up with it in the late 19th century! A great deal of those holes have been filled! There are holes in the Theory of Gravity, do you not believe in gravity?

Trying to equate evolution to gravity shows me you don't know as much as you think you do about science to be quite honest.

Bigred1995;646052 wrote:And you'd be wrong. You can continue to use the layman's term for theory, but the scientific community has a pretty strong grasp of the definition and that's all that matters!

A scientific theory, while supposedly supported by ample evidence, is still a theory. There's a reason why there is a separation in science between scientific theory and scientific laws.

The laws of thermodynamics=scientific fact
The theory of relativity=scientific evidence based belief (or theory).
The theory of evolution=scientific evidence based believe (or theory).

I'm sorry, but as a scientist, I am telling you that you are wrong. And please stop trying to equate the theory of evolution to gravitational theory, it makes you look bad. Saying "there are holes in gravitational theory but you still believe in gravity" makes you look belittling and honestly scientifically ignorant of the two theories.

Bigred1995;646159 wrote: Look at the etymology of Chemistry! Now go tell jmog that his profession is no different than alchemy! Good luck with that!



.

Heck, if I could find a way to turn iron to gold...


Oh, and I'm not going to have the evolution/creation debate on here again, its mind numbing the number of times we've all had that discussion...do a search, you'll find everything I've ever had to say on it .

Bigred1995;645993 wrote:Why do you guys (& gals ) keep regurgitating this line? It simply is not true! I'm sure there is a population of people that don't believe based solely on things unknown, or because of lack of evidence, but for the majority it's not the case.
Besides, to say that it take as much faith to not believe than it does to believe is no different than saying you require as much faith to not believe in, Bal, Ra, Zeus, Oden, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster! The logic you use to not believe in those gods is the same logic we use to not believe in your god! So if you believe it takes a certain amount of faith to not believe in your god you must concede you require just as much faith to not believe in these other gods!

First of all, thanks for including "gals", lol! Although using the term "guys" is alright by me, assuming it's used as a collective.

Secondly, I have to point out that you believe in science right? Even though you don't know everything there is to know about it and science is still based on some THEORIES and not fact? You cannot see what I mean by saying that it takes a certain amount of faith or belief? I think you do, because I'm assuming by what I've read of your posts that you're a very intelligent person who likes to learn.

I'm not as learned as Otrap in the study of God, even though I have done some research and learning of my own. To me, God is God and I don't care what title people hang on him; whether it's Jehovah, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or whatever you want to come up with. I think Zeus can even be thrown in there, but I wonder about "Oden".... (j/k)
Because there (I believe) is a Creator in the singular sense, does it matter what people of different times, cultures or beliefs name him/her/them? I don't think so. I know that sentence doesn't really make sense, but I don't really know enough to be able to define what exactly God is (if gender is even relevant or if God is truly Trinity). I guess just like there's some things science doesn't know enough about certain things so just uses terms like "Dark Matter". I know that there's a term for that certain train of thought but I cannot remember it and don't feel like looking it up; I've already looked things up today with another topic. I know Otrap would know, as he's pointed that out to me before.
I do not care if I don't know everything about God. I do not care if I don't know everything about science. NOBODY knows everything about either subject. I happen to entertain the theory that both are entwined, we just don't know how. Perhaps science will be able to find out one day, perhaps not
I suppose I should just say that I'm open to discussion to alot of things concerning this topic, and my mind hasn't reached the "uncurious" level, and I hope it never does! There are two main things though that I will probably never change my stance on and those are:
- I absolutely believe in God (or the beginer of creation, if you choose) because IMO there's just as much of a good argument in stating his case of being as there isn't in disproving his being.
- And for the reasons I stated above, there has to be for anybody of thought, just as much faith and belief in their thoughts of there being no God as it does for the person(s) who have faith in their belief that there is a God.

I think, comparitively(did I spell that right lol)there are few people who are truly ambivalent about the existence of God. But that's just me and anybody else can have differing thoughts, it matters not to me, truly.
.....................
What is constantly evident though to me is that there are two different kinds of non-believers:
- Those who can question those who believe with dignity, curiosity, intellect and honest debate
- Those who cannot
It is my contention that those who cannot do a great disservice to those who can, for the obvious reasons.
...............

To repeat, I'm not much of a theological student as compared to Otrap or Jmog, and I'm OK with that.

jmog;646551 wrote:Trying to equate evolution to gravity shows me you don't know as much as you think you do about science to be quite honest.

I didn't equate evolution to gravity. My point in brining up gravity was to point out that there are still a great deal of things that we don't know about gravity, but because it doesn't fly in the face of religious views, it's taken as the scientists give it to us!

jmog;646559 wrote:A scientific theory, while supposedly supported by ample evidence, is still a theory. There's a reason why there is a separation in science between scientific theory and scientific laws.

The laws of thermodynamics=scientific fact
The theory of relativity=scientific evidence based belief (or theory).
The theory of evolution=scientific evidence based believe (or theory).

I'm sorry, but as a scientist, I am telling you that you are wrong. And please stop trying to equate the theory of evolution to gravitational theory, it makes you look bad. Saying "there are holes in gravitational theory but you still believe in gravity" makes you look belittling and honestly scientifically ignorant of the two theories.

Theories aren't "supposedly supported by ample evidence" but are the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

jmog;646564 wrote:Heck, if I could find a way to turn iron to gold...


Oh, and I'm not going to have the evolution/creation debate on here again, its mind numbing the number of times we've all had that discussion...do a search, you'll find everything I've ever had to say on it .

I find it funny that you can attack my post, using one theory to point out an error in his logic, but you ignore his obvious blunder for equating a real science with superstition! I guess you are nothing more than just a glorified alchemist!

Yes, I do realize the topic of evolution has been played out on here and TOS, but new people come along all the time, spewing the same garbage logic previous posters, and those faulty ideals need to be pointed out.

It reminds me of the time you actually tried to pass a garbage model showing how the global flood could have happened, but when I brought in real experts on the matter with real data, the topic is quickly dropped. By the way, did the good doctor ever reply to your email to explain to you how he accounted for the immense heat created? I can tell you that I'm still waiting for a reply!

Bigred1995;646595 wrote:Yes, I do realize the topic of evolution has been played out on here and TOS, but new people come along all the time, spewing the same garbage logic previous posters, and those faulty ideals need to be pointed out.

This happens over all sides, as well.

O-Trap;646668 wrote:This happens over all sides, as well.

I agree!

I believe in Creation.
I believe in the Bible.
I believe in the Father ,Son and the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the Ressurection.

If I am wrong (I obviously do not think I am) I will have to accept any consequences. But I will continue to share what I believe until that day comes.

Bigred1995;646595 wrote:


Theories aren't "supposedly supported by ample evidence" but are the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

You, again, have theories wrong.


The theory of relativity, string theory, evolution, etc are based on analysis of data/evidence and best possible assertions made.

Einstein couldn't really travel at the speed of light to test his theory.

String theory can not really be proven since we still can not see things that small.

Evolution can not really be proven since it would take millions of years of observations to see animals evolve.

You throw the word scientific fact around pretty loosely.

Also, about the global flood model, your "expert" threw out assumptions in minutes, he did not run any detail calculations to negate the model. I could make wild claims about any chemical experiment and be WAY off if i didn't do any actual analysis.

And, to act like its only the crazy Christians who "spew the same garbage logic", you are also far from reality. There are PLENTY of those on here that believe in evolution who spew some really garbage logic and science.

jmog;646711 wrote:You, again, have theories wrong.


The theory of relativity, string theory, evolution, etc are based on analysis of data/evidence and best possible assertions made.

Einstein couldn't really travel at the speed of light to test his theory.

String theory can not really be proven since we still can not see things that small.

Evolution can not really be proven since it would take millions of years of observations to see animals evolve.

You throw the word scientific fact around pretty loosely.

Also, about the global flood model, your "expert" threw out assumptions in minutes, he did not run any detail calculations to negate the model. I could make wild claims about any chemical experiment and be WAY off if i didn't do any actual analysis.

And, to act like its only the crazy Christians who "spew the same garbage logic", you are also far from reality. There are PLENTY of those on here that believe in evolution who spew some really garbage logic and science.

What you fail to conceed is that these, "analysis of data/evidence and best possible assertions made" for these theories aren't just really good guesses, but are based on the math. just as countless other theories have been proven in the past! No, Einstein can't travel at the speed of light to test his theory, but the math tells him what he needs to know. In the future, could it be proven that his math is wrong? Possibly (actually, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the speed of light actually isn't constant so that his equation isn't 100% accurate, but I may be thinking of something else), but when that time gets here the math is what we have to go with!

As far as my "expert" is concerned, he did not throw "out assumptions in minutes", he actually did the calculations. if you remember, that back and forth spanned a few days! I offered those calculations to you, and if you'd like when i get home I can look for them for you!


Center, I haven't forgotten about you, I'll type up my response during lunch