What bothers you most about these posts?

Correct but what you usually see revision or refinement, rarely do you see the entire paradigm thrown out the window like Ptlomey's spheres. Yes they may revise the age of the earth, but I seriously doubt they'll ramp it down to 5,000 years from 4.5B. Do you believe the age of the Earth as implied in the Bible is correct, or that is something closer to 4.5B?

The ability and desire to revise and accept new data is what drives us forward. I don't see that with creationists...they have made up their mind and anyone who's says otherwise is a pagan and just testing their faith.

I think its relevant to note the difference between revising data and theory vs. throwing out the entire theory because of a slight change in data or information.

 

as far as I'm concerned, John Galt decided it.

 

There are theologians on the pay roll (some not) who've wrangled with this for a long time. For me, it's not a stumbling block, that the sovereignty of the supreme being and the "free will" choices can co-exist. How it works has been the subject of many books and musings, some I've read that made some sense, so I left satisfied and moved on.

 

Great quote pump. That one's a keeper.

 

Wow, two John Galt references in one day. What's happenening here?

 

If you can point me to some that make sense I'll give them a fair shake. Feel free to take that offline and PM me if you want, or just post here. I wonder how they would line up with my thinking. I don't see it as stumbling block for accepting that there is a higher power, supreme being, but IMO it's a huge thorn in the side of the whole "its all God's plan" argument.

 

ah, easy fellah, you are starting to make too much sense, I mean what about muh roaads!

 

Ok. If I can dig'm up I'll PM you.

 

this is what is wrong with you. We are great individuals, we need nothing, do not denigrate us with your lies and myths

WE are the ones WE'VE been waiting for,
and on that note I will take my 1K post

 

Critical Wound!

Zoon Politikan. Man by nature, is a political animal.
-Aristotle

Organized religion was nothing more than an early form of government; One which would soon be nothing but an oppressive set of morals tyrannically enforced, responsible for the slaughter of whole societies, appropriating their culture and suppressing scientific advancement all along, much in the way that Capitalism does today.

 

Let's not forget about the rape ok guys

 

I'm fine without Jesus... Bet you were a junky w/o him though.

 

And this is where you are completely and unequivocally wrong. I understand you may be an engineer, even a very good engineer, but you are confusing a theory with a hypothesis, probably from too many years of drinking the anti-evolution Kool-Aid. Evolution, even macro evolution, is a proven fact. It is called the theory of evolution and not the hypothesis of evolution precisely because it has been well-supported by observations and experimental evidence.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence, a theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law. A theory may, in fact, contain multiple laws.

Here's the source material:
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Theories and laws are distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.

Credit where credit is due: Some info comes from Wikipedia as well, so it should be easy enough to find and look for sources.

I'm not sure if you're defending or arguing against ID. ID hasn't been accepted by the scientific community for philosophical reasons? That's some serious mental gymnastics there, Brian Boitano. By that logic, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny got together on a cold winter night, warmed each other in their special places and spewed forth the goo that became everything that exists. You could almost call it "A Big Bang".

If you want to believe in a supernatural creator, then by all means feel free to do so, but please don't compare faith in G-d, chtulhu, the fsm, or whatever your fave superfriend is to believing a proven, observable, measureable fact.

 

Yo' Whitey. I understand the issues people have with Wayne's MO. But your list of allegations is bogus. One does not need to be involved with law enforcement to do a little research and check a few registries. The investigation returned zilch.

I was expecting my good acquaintance MIS to call out this bovine scatology, but he's probably occupied with more important matters.

Please feel free to report back with items of veracity.

 

I'm curious about this as well. If there's even 10% truth to the Ape's list, then Wayne really is insane and deserving of the ridicule he gets here. If it's all character assassination, then as Cartman would say:[video=youtube;qBCDY5XhZng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCDY5XhZng[/video]

 

God is a woman. Here is why......

jealous
vengeful
always wanting to give something
judgmental
always wanting compliments
wanting a "relationship"
not allowing any other "gods"

And the most important...... If I were God I wouldn't want one of my favorite things (barrels and the baby barrel) on something so annoying as a woman. Only a woman would be that vengeful, jealous, and spiteful.

 

@Sailquik. Thanks for your well thought out reply. I get all that.
I can't prove God's existence just as much as one can't prove he doesn't exist (stated earlier, I believe by BE)..
Likewise, neither can either of us prove God's hand in creation or the development of life or that there is none at all.

As also said, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

The battles between the ID camp and Evolution will continue to rage on. I understand why ID cannot be embraced by science, because it requires an unprovable agent or mechanism -- God (even if some of the concepts are possibly sound). Science and Philosophy/Theology are in different departments in colleges for good reason.

Personally, I did not start by "drinking the Creationism Kool-Aid", but rather initially adopted the evolutionary explanation of things. Over time, however, I've come to personally believe in a creator and marvel at His handiwork. Now, whether He used the various mechanisms scientists continue to uncover as part of the process, who is to say. Yet another unprovable conjecture.

And remember, just because something is unprovable, does not make it untrue. I could present examples of this, but I'm sure you know this.

Lastly, though the evolutionary theory is the only "scientific" explaination for origins, I find it to be weak. A google of things like "falsified transitional forms" or "problems with the cambrian explosion" will find articles by written by people with more letters after there name than me, that point out the flaws. Thus, I am not ready to take it hook, line, and sinker.

 

F@ck off c@nt