Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
nereas- hate to tell you this but you've got the origin of God used in the Bible wrong. Check this out. Or, if you don't like that source (Heaven forbid that a link to a Biblically-based website be taken seriously around here), try wikipedia, everyone's darling source. :shakehead:

As to English being "invented" in 1066, that's not at all accurate either. The Norman Invasion took place in 1066 (Saturday, October 14th, to be exact :D ) which resulted in Norman-French becoming the language used by the ruling class. The Anglo-Saxon language already existed & it took several hundred years for the two languages to evolve into the early form of English that we speak today.

When it comes to the subject of science or history then there is indeed little reason to take biblically based websites seriously.
 
Ah, but doublespeak like pro-choice is acceptable? What's wrong with pro-abortion? Seems to me that it is a pretty way of hiding the fact that a human life is being taken. Sorry, Thal- that type of insulting argument cuts both ways. :shakehead:

It is because I am not 'pro-abortion'. I personally would not have an abortion myself for various reasons, however I think others should have the right to choose for themselves so therefore I am 'pro-choice'. 'Pro-abortion' implies you think abortion is a good thing, which many pro-choice people don't think it is but they agree it should be up to the individual to choose. But yea, I really would not object to being labelled 'pro-abortion' though, but you can see why it is called 'pro-choice'.

People who are against abortion, however, are 'anti-abortion' because they disagree on principle with the abortion operation and want others to be forced to share their view.
 
'Pro-abortion' implies you think abortion is a good thing,
In some situations it IS a good thing, but it doesn't necessarily imply that someone who is pro-abortion would always think that.

Abortion isn't a particularly pleasant experience that sees loads of women lining up to have just for fun......
 
Your religion is pro life...mine is Pro abortion as long as the fetus endangers the life of the mother. So why should your religion trump mine ? (btw I'm Jewish.)
 
In some situations it IS a good thing, but it doesn't necessarily imply that someone who is pro-abortion would always think that.

Abortion isn't a particularly pleasant experience that sees loads of women lining up to have just for fun......

Yea, that is what I wanted to get across, but you've described it a lot better :)
 
I'm definitely pro-abortion and a woman's right to choose. In the UK the laws are based on viability of the embryo. It's not taking life if a life can't survive on it's own. If you could remove embryos from an unwilling womb and they can survive themselves, then abortion becomes virtually unnecessary. Who is anyone to dictate that a woman MUST supply her womb even if she dosn't want to?

Thanks, Kim for at least saying it correctly. FWIW, I am not afraid to say that I am anti-abortion. :D

I'm not going to involve myself in the debate over whether it is right or wrong- Mike has already done an eloquent & patient job of expressing my opinion on the subject. I simply wanted to call attention to what I see as a double standard in this debate- that euphemisms like "pro-choice" are acceptable to the majority of this crowd but that "pro-life" is deemed doublespeak.

Frankly, I find the singular lack of respect that Mike has been treated with by many people arguing with him appalling & wonder at his patience in attempting to answer the questions that he has been asked (& answered) repeatedly. He may not know it but he has the gift of evangelism. :D Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with what he has to say, he does not deserve to be insulted as he has been, nor does anyone else who believes the way he does. I have yet to see any instance where he has been less than respectful of those he is debating & yet many of those same people have seen fit to ridicule him, his faith, & all Christians with impunity. I sincerely hope that if this discussion is to continue that it do so in a more respectful vein. I wonder if the same tack would be taken if the discussion were about Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism? Somehow, I doubt it.

From my POV, the arguments directed at Mike & other followers of Christ who have posted in this thread have taken the form of the very browbeating that Christians have long been accused of- rightly accused of, at times, I admit. You see, one thing that I have learned about human nature is that someone who is prone to judgmentalism & browbeating to force their ideas on someone is just as likely to occur without, as within, organized religion. I should know- I had the tendency to be that way all of my 45 years as an agnostic & have had to fight against that same sin the 6 years that I have been a Christian. :shakehead:

One final observation. What Mike has been talking about all along is something very different than what his opponents have been talking about. He's been talking about following Christ, His teachings, His death on the cross, the Resurrection & the salvation that was freely given to us by that sacrifice, as well as the Word of God contained in the Bible. He has not been talking about organized religion.

I'll bow out now & go back to reading this thread. I've very little appetite for getting sucked into this debate. Thanks again, Kim, for not trying to hide behind the doublespeak & stating your honest opinion plainly & without insult.
 
When it comes to the subject of science or history then there is indeed little reason to take biblically based websites seriously.

And your comment is a prime example of the type of narrow-minded bigotry that we Christians are always accused of. In your eagerness to insult Christianity, you carelessly insult all the great thinkers, historians & scientists throughout the ages who have believed in some form of deity, be that deity Christ or something else. :shakehead:
 
Thanks, Kim for at least saying it correctly. FWIW, I am not afraid to say that I am anti-abortion. :D

I'm not going to involve myself in the debate over whether it is right or wrong- Mike has already done an eloquent & patient job of expressing my opinion on the subject. I simply wanted to call attention to what I see as a double standard in this debate- that euphemisms like "pro-choice" are acceptable to the majority of this crowd but that "pro-life" is deemed doublespeak.

Frankly, I find the singular lack of respect that Mike has been treated with by many people arguing with him appalling & wonder at his patience in attempting to answer the questions that he has been asked (& answered) repeatedly. He may not know it but he has the gift of evangelism. :D Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with what he has to say, he does not deserve to be insulted as he has been, nor does anyone else who believes the way he does. I have yet to see any instance where he has been less than respectful of those he is debating & yet many of those same people have seen fit to ridicule him, his faith, & all Christians with impunity. I sincerely hope that if this discussion is to continue that it do so in a more respectful vein. I wonder if the same tack would be taken if the discussion were about Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism? Somehow, I doubt it.

From my POV, the arguments directed at Mike & other followers of Christ who have posted in this thread have taken the form of the very browbeating that Christians have long been accused of- rightly accused of, at times, I admit. You see, one thing that I have learned about human nature is that someone who is prone to judgmentalism & browbeating to force their ideas on someone is just as likely to occur without, as within, organized religion. I should know- I had the tendency to be that way all of my 45 years as an agnostic & have had to fight against that same sin the 6 years that I have been a Christian. :shakehead:

One final observation. What Mike has been talking about all along is something very different than what his opponents have been talking about. He's been talking about following Christ, His teachings, His death on the cross, the Resurrection & the salvation that was freely given to us by that sacrifice, as well as the Word of God contained in the Bible. He has not been talking about organized religion.

I'll bow out now & go back to reading this thread. I've very little appetite for getting sucked into this debate. Thanks again, Kim, for not trying to hide behind the doublespeak & stating your honest opinion plainly & without insult.

Well I would hardly consider Mike's posts respectful given that he has labelled the entire population of the world sinful, he has said that homosexuals should not have equality with heterosexuals, posted paranoid comments about the 'gay agenda' and rarely been straight in answering direct questions. I find his attitudes towards homosexuals and women appalling personally. I mean, he won't even agree that organised religion has been responsible for discriminating against women and homosexuals!

Btw, I think as little of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism as I do Christianity actually. But so far, nobody of those faiths has stepped forward with their thoughts on this debate (or at least in the last 10 pages or so).
 
And your comment is a prime example of the type of narrow-minded bigotry that we Christians are always accused of. In your eagerness to insult Christianity, you carelessly insult all the great thinkers, historians & scientists throughout the ages who have believed in some form of deity, be that deity Christ or something else. :shakehead:

He did not say that, he said 'Biblically-based' websites. Not any believer in God. There is a big difference.
 
Frankly, I find the singular lack of respect that Mike has been treated with by many people arguing with him appalling & wonder at his patience in attempting to answer the questions that he has been asked (& answered) repeatedl. He may not know it but he has the gift of evangelism. .

Seems to me, he has definitely been drawing on a higher power. Even if he and I disagree on exactly what that higher power is.

You can call it evangelism if you like, but I see it as an indication that he must be an awfully good person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom