Creation vs. Evolution

[Diver Dennis]

What does all of this have to do with word meanings?

Point is that creationists ignore and distort facts because these facts are inconvenient and contradict their world view. Period. Once you do that you can no longer have any kind of real discussion.

So you have irrefutable facts to back your theories? Good, then please present them and prove us guys wrong...

 

[MikeFerrara]

You asked for research to show it's discrimination, and then dismiss it since studies can be made to show anything one wants them to.....

I didn't dismiss them. I questioned them.

and ideas based on lack of knowledge, cultural bias or fear are a better choice?

No

Personally? I think that what children need is to be loved by whomever raises them.

Children need a lot more than that.

Cultures around the world raise children in "non-traditional" family settings, and the world hasn't ended yet..

It hasn't ended but it sure is a mess most of the time.

And what about those unfortunate families where the model the parent(s) show is one of violence or abuse? Is that really better for the child?

Not good, but surely nobody here is suggesting that it is. They don't knowingly let violent abusive parents adopt either do they? In fact, don't they often remove children from homes like that, even taking them from their natural parents?

 

[MikeFerrara]

The problem is, they aren't lessons. They are instructions "Don't do this because God will smite you" type of thing. That only works on the lowest common denominator. Most people need to understand *why* they shouldn't do these things. The only way to do this is to understand how to reason. Frankly, I think ethics and logic should be classes required at the high school level.

You haven't actually read the Bible have you? The "why" is there along with many examples.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV
"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Well not sure how much help that is, but better to hang on to them I guess. Bad luck for any poor blokes with testicular cancer.

Very helpful if you understand where and how it fits in, which is all there in the Bible and it's been explained in this thread a bunch of times.

Taking one liners out of context doesn't make much of a point in a debate. In this case, it only demonstrates that you don't understand the text or the context.

What's amazing is how very many Biblical principles are so vividly illustrated and supported by posts like yours.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Is there such a thing as Companycide?

My experience in the corporate world leads me to believe that there is.

 

[MikeFerrara]

What does all of this have to do with word meanings?

Point is that creationists ignore and distort facts because these facts are inconvenient and contradict their world view. Period.

No, the period doesn't go there.

Without all the facts, it's easy to formulate dead-end hypothesis or come to inaccurate conclusions.

I can see how a scientist might be frustrated by the "religionist" who tries to use a few short pages of the first couple of chapters of the book of Genesis as a science text and then understands selected facts without further context as being complete support. Not good or useful science.

On the other side, we see all those who use selected sentences out of context to support complete misstatements concerning scripture. See the similarity? Then we explain and/or correct...and three pages later we see the same misstatement again...maybe even by the same person. I guess these facts are inconvenient and contradict their view of scripture? LOL as the person goes on about their talent in logic and ability to reason. Yet, if this is representative of their ability to reason logically, there is a reasonable chance that they have the science all wrong too.

It looks to me like everybody is making the exact same type of mistakes. Each side then calls the other ignorant and...they're both right. LOL which BTW is completely consistent with scripture.

 

[Theunis]

Here, have a transitional fossil...

Scientists discover "frogamander" fossil

I did a search on this frogamander on the internet!!

The picture of the perfect little frogamander fossil looks like a squashed frog without legs and the beautiful undated artist's rendition looks like a common chameleon to me.

Maybe I should classify myself as a scientist now.

 

[MikeFerrara]

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that several species of animal participate in homosexual acts. Thus, it is "natural."

Lots of things are natural but not all are helpful or useful and many are detrimental.

You can argue that we, as intelligent beings capable of reason and control of our actions should not participate in homosexuality, but then you have to give a reason.

Because it isn't helpful or useful.

However, in regard to our ability to reason and control our actions, I'd point out that we don't do very well on our own.

But your reason is that someone said so in a book. That doesn't work for me.

No that isn't the reason. The reason is that it doesn't work well. We can find that out in several ways. We can read it (or be told), believe it and save ourselves a lot of trouble...or we can do it the hard way and find out for ourselves.

At dinner with a couple of GUE instructors and part of the class after one of the DIRF classes I sat in on, we were just shooting the breeze and talking diving. Of course, some of us have lerned a lot about diving the hard way...by doing it wrong first. "Wrong" being defined as what doesn't work.

After a bunch of stories had been exchanged and examples given, one of the GUE instructors commented that he hadn't ever actually had any of those problems on a dive because of how he learned diving from the start. I guess you would have had to have been there but I think it was a real "head slapin" moment for some.

That's kind of how I felt when I first started to really read the Bible after fourty-something years of trying to figure it all out for myself.

 

[Soggy]

I did a search on this frogamander on the internet!!

The picture of the perfect little frogamander fossil looks like a squashed frog without legs and the beautiful undated artist's rendition looks like a common chameleon to me.

Maybe I should classify myself as a scientist now.

You're saying it's a hoax? Man, you really are deluded.

 

[Soggy]

Because it isn't helpful or useful.

I guess that's a matter of debate. It sure seems helpful and useful to the homosexuals.

No that isn't the reason. The reason is that it doesn't work well. We can find that out in several ways. We can read it (or be told), believe it and save ourselves a lot of trouble...or we can do it the hard way and find out for ourselves.

Thankfully, it's not that hard. It also doesn't mean not learning from other people's mistakes. I do plenty of that. Most of this stuff is pretty darn easy. Just because your answers came out of a book doesn't mean that mine aren't influenced by the smart people that have come before me. It's not like I'm starting tabula rasa here.

After a bunch of stories had been exchanged and examples given, one of the GUE instructors commented that he hadn't ever actually had any of those problems on a dive because of how he learned diving from the start. I guess you would have had to have been there but I think it was a real "head slapin" moment for some.

That's kind of how I felt when I first started to really read the Bible after fourty-something years of trying to figure it all out for myself.

That's how I feel when the few people that I know who have abandoned religion finally came to their senses. As you said, it works on both sides. I actually see my way of looking at it much like the DIR approach...don't blindly follow what people say...make sure they have good reasons that fit within a broader context. My experience with DIR is that the rules and techniques are useless without being taught the context and reasons behind it.