Creation vs. Evolution

[Sordello]

&, when you are referring to the God of the Old & New Testaments, that "God" with a capital "G."



Thal, & others. Have you forgotten that when you post things like this that you are addressing a much wider audience than the person that you are addressing? I have been totally dismayed by the singular lack of respect displayed in this thread towards fellow members of SB & the total disregard for civility & the ToS. I am not at all impressed or persuaded by arguments that include insults as part of the debate. I have to question the intelligence of people who stoop to such tactics.

When you make such a statement, Thal, you totally negate your earlier posts stating that you hold Mike & me in high regard. This is our God & our faith as it is ce4jesus's. I simply cannot understand how the "scientists" in this thread expect to be taken seriously when they cannot argue dispassionately & with reason.

Thanks Marvel...

 

[boulderjohn]

While its true that Nero's persescution of the church destroyed most of the viable documents, the scripture that remains was enough. There are many more artifacts including letters and sermons from the early church which were used to reconstruct missing pieces. Furthermore, the essentials of the Christian Faith are accounted for with original documents. As for the trinity, Jesus himself talks of the holy spirit. Trinity is a later term used to describe the Godhead ..Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a limit of our language capacity to adequately describe 1 God, in 3 persons.

This is a stunning statement.

Why?

First, because it is so stunningly inaccurate.

Next, because accurate descriptions and references to authorities regarding the origin of early Christian documents have been given in this thread several times, without any substantive comment from you. The presence of contradictions and changes over the centuries has been pointed out. The late addition of the reference to the father, son, and holy spirit (not just the term "trinity"), not found in any of the earliest documents, has been mentioned repeatedly. It seems to me that your strategy for argument is to ignore totally any clear evidence that refutes your beliefs and go on repeating the same errors over and over again. I have an image of you holding your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA" while reading what others write.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, frankly.

 

[Warthaug]

How is posting a link to an obviously biased souce = thoughtful and well researched.

The "biased source" being the very science which is under question? You made several claims, vis-a-vis the content of a scientific article. I simply provided the reference to the article, pointed out your errors, gave an accurate description of what was actually found (with quotations from the paper itself).

Or, in other words, I used your citation. I guess its now biased, since it did not make the claims you said it did...I guess my mistake was going the extra mile, by provided additional links to the same groups work, which clearly showed where your misunderstandings came from. Maybe it was those extra sources which were biased, even though they came from the same group you referenced initially?

But based on your previous posts, we all know what the real answer is - anything factually proven through experimentation and observation is "biased". You'll only accept those results and interpretations which agree fully with your interpretation of the bible. You were quite happy with the "unbiased" paper when you thought it supported your claims. But now that I've pointed out what it actually claims, and shown you where your misconceptions came from, it is now "biased" as it no longer supports your religions dogma.

Maybe to be credible in your eyes I should just go your route and make things up, and state them in the absence of any sort of citation...

...or maybe I should stick to the standards expected of rational discussion...

This is funny. If I post a link to a religous site debunking an argument on here, would you then classify that as thoughtful and well researched? Please.

If you provided such a link we could judge its claims from an evidentary point of view. In fact, we've been hounding you for months to provide such a citation - you know, thal and my challenge to provide an alternative explanation. But since you ignored that challenge time and time again, we of course cannot do a thing...

Bryan

 

[Kim]

I see no point in continuing this discussion, frankly.

I felt like that about 4000 posts ago....... but occasionally I can't help rubber-necking.

I would have to comment though that for those who consider something to be non-existent....calling it "looser" is rather counter-productive. (although I'd probably prefer to spell it "loser" )

First...... it gives credence to what is supposedly a non-entity....(you can't be a loser if you don't exist)

Secondly..... I personally see no reason to blame others for not thinking as I do. I'll argue my position...... very forcefully in fact....
I'll possibly get trashed for it one way or another at times as well...... but depending on how THAT is delivered generally says more about someone else than it does about me, or what I argue for....
But some people will always do as they do....... and understanding is often extremely relative, ESPECIALLY when there are fixed ideas in place that would rock a persons very being if they were ever disturbed.... (where do you think "Rock & Roll" came from anyway?)

But blame? It's part of the illusion.

I don't think many attitudes are ever going to change on this topic, within this thread. But while I think that some here are self deluding themselves over parts of the discussion.... they're mostly not bad people as far as I can tell - so in my mind I'd think it's best to agree to disagree in a civil manner if it gets to the point that insults are being thrown....

What you think privately is of course always your own business.

 

[Theunis]

&, when you are referring to the God of the Old & New Testaments, that "God" with a capital "G."

Thal, & others. Have you forgotten that when you post things like this that you are addressing a much wider audience than the person that you are addressing? I have been totally dismayed by the singular lack of respect displayed in this thread towards fellow members of SB & the total disregard for civility & the ToS. I am not at all impressed or persuaded by arguments that include insults as part of the debate. I have to question the intelligence of people who stoop to such tactics.

I totally agree with you and I must say that I am also shocked with the blasphemy going on here.



Some members here are atheists and that is their choice, but to those members I am asking to stop defaming or insulting God. For me an insult made to God is the same or even worse than an insult made to my wife, mother, father or child.

 

[Warthaug]

I totally agree with you...

And I find it somewhat ironic that you and marvel don't seem to have an issue with similar types of insults being thrown at the atheists and scientists. While I'd agree that your complaint is justifiable (I've likely crossed the line of civility more than once), you're in a pot-meets-kettle type situation here.

As it stands, I treat others as they treat me. I've had many civil conversations with individuals in this thread, but I reply in kind to those who prefer insults.

Bryan

 

[Spencermm]

&, when you are referring to the God of the Old & New Testaments, that "God" with a capital "G."



Thal, & others. Have you forgotten that when you post things like this that you are addressing a much wider audience than the person that you are addressing? I have been totally dismayed by the singular lack of respect displayed in this thread towards fellow members of SB & the total disregard for civility & the ToS. I am not at all impressed or persuaded by arguments that include insults as part of the debate. I have to question the intelligence of people who stoop to such tactics.

When you make such a statement, Thal, you totally negate your earlier posts stating that you hold Mike & me in high regard. This is our God & our faith as it is ce4jesus's. I simply cannot understand how the "scientists" in this thread expect to be taken seriously when they cannot argue dispassionately & with reason.

I agree.
When folks start insulting each other their arguments start to sound like ignorant rantings, and the more passionate the insult, the more ignorant the rant sounds to me.
I must agree w/Warthaug though that is has come from both sides. In fact, it bothers me more to see a Christian write personally hurtful and insulting things- we should know better. (Though most posters, in my opinion, have handled themselves respectfully.) I don't THINK I have said anything hurtful- if I have I am truely sorry.
For me personally, my faith can not be insulted- I am very secure in my beliefs. In fact- this thread has made me even more secure in my faith.
In terms of disrespecting God- He is big and can take it. Though it does hurt my heart for the person doing the insulting. Makes me wonder where that negative passion comes from- certainly not from science or logic.
Spencer

 

[Marvel]

And I find it somewhat ironic that you and marvel don't seem to have an issue with similar types of insults being thrown at the atheists and scientists. While I'd agree that your complaint is justifiable (I've likely crossed the line of civility more than once), you're in a pot-meets-kettle type situation here.

As it stands, I treat others as they treat me. I've had many civil conversations with individuals in this thread, but I reply in kind to those who prefer insults.

Bryan

Bryan, I agree- no one on either side should be exchanging insults. It's gotten more than a bit disrespectful in this thread at times. While there have been some barbed & sarcastic posts by a couple of the Creationists, which is not how we should be presenting ourselves, the actual name calling seems to be totally on the side of the Evolutionists. Think back to who used words such as clowns, fools, idiots, fundaholics- or do a search if you do not believe me.

I'd ask that we all move away from these types of posts. It's simply not necessary nor conducive to productive dialog. If that is the true intent of the majority of the posters & not pot stirring, we will all see the logic of stepping back from the acrimonious posts. Kim summed up everything nicely when he said

..... I personally see no reason to blame others for not thinking as I do. I'll argue my position...... very forcefully in fact....
I'll possibly get trashed for it one way or another at times as well...... but depending on how THAT is delivered generally says more about someone else than it does about me, or what I argue for....

...I don't think many attitudes are ever going to change on this topic, within this thread. But while I think that some here are self deluding themselves over parts of the discussion.... they're mostly not bad people as far as I can tell - so in my mind I'd think it's best to agree to disagree in a civil manner if it gets to the point that insults are being thrown....

& finally...

What you think privately is of course always your own business.

True that, Kim!

 

[Sordello]

Hey Kim, are you mad at us? Haven't hung out with the old group for a while.

 

[deco_martini]

when you are referring to the God of the Old & New Testaments, that "God" with a capital "G."

The word "God" does not appear in the Old or New Testaments. Only in English translations. The deity of those books is referred to by personal names. I usually capitalize the term "God" when referring to Yahweh/Elohim/Jehovah but I was raised as a fundamentalist and old habits die hard.

I am pretty sure that if that deity exists, he would prefer to be called his name and not a generic name for all deities. Indeed, if God were a pepsi, I don't think he would appreciate being called "Coke" (in the southern US, coke is vernacular for any carbonated cola beverage) just because you capitalize the "C".

If you read the Old Testament, he is a very jealous god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Etymology_and_usage