100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Ejay questions: Yes - I noticed that you'd read all the way up to page 47 of the other thread on the questions of Leviticus, yet you never once referenced anything I wrote. Only what Deb wrote - and I'd responded numerous times to the questions before Deb even entered the thread. I was just curious about that. Eljay, I’ll tell ya what. You go back over the thread and YOU show me where anything you said was totally ignored and NOT refuted. It seemed to me that everyone who attempted to give a reasonable rebuttel to the questions Krimsa asked were speaking along the same lines. However, it was shown TIME AND AGAIN why your responses did not address the entirety of her questions. I chose to respond using Feral because Feral is the one who constantly says she argues and is NEVER found wrong. I was just pointing out the fact that is only in her mind that she is never found wrong. In this case, though, none of the Christians were able to adequately respond with any semblance of logic that would keep your beliefs in tact. That's fine. I was just curious. No one adressed my post. It was on page 46 - 8th post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay writes: However, I would be curious as to know where - if anywhere - it says that "only the Holy Spirit can speak for God". I think that is an Abra-ism. If you find it Redy - let me know, I can't. Perhaps his observations are a tad too keen. Is not the holy spirit also god? Is not Jesus also god? Can either of them speak for god? Is there anyone else that can speak for god? According to Christians, Jesus is god and therefore may speak as god, but is no longer in physical form on this planet. Also According to Christians, in a great many of these threads, we have been told time and time again that one MUST interpret scripture with the aid of the holy spirit. Also others have told us they have a connection with the holy spirit and that is how they know they are correct and they are also told how, and when to act and their questions to god are answered by the holy spirit. Now I can tell you that the triune god is brought forth in the book of Genesis. But that’s all I know. So you tell me, where do they get this information. I don’t know, but it must be true, they believe it and whatever they believe is true. Is it not? Ask Feral, she knows everything. If not than which Christian doctrine do we believe? No one can prophesize for God - that is not the same thing as speaking for God. If one quotes the scriptures - they are speaking for God. That was Abra's point. What is yours? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my understanding that there are many modern day Christians who do accept natural selection, Darwinism and human evolution either in its entirety or they might mix it up a little with creationism. Would the fundamentalists hunt them down as non-believers or simply reject them as being too radical and not true god-fearing Christians? How is that handled? think of abra. at some point in his personal evolution of thought he was there, right where you are looking for experience as an answer. But he passed through that stage on his way to his present affirmations. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 08/12/08 12:08 AM
|
|
IT HAPPENED IN THE STATE OF COLORADO
The mule who had A foal is proof of a new species. That is all Feral asked for. One animal. One new species. In late April, Laura and Larry Amos discovered that a mule called Kate had a newborn foal. The Amos family runs a wilderness outfitter and owns a large herd of mules. Now thats proof positive. Horses have 64 chromosomes, and donkeys have 62. Amos says the baby could be a mule (with 63 chromosomes), a donkey (with 62 chromosomes) or a chimera — an animal that has genetic material from different species. So somewhere in nature, something happened and a new species that can reproduce has evolved. JB  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me - evolutionary science is not an issue. Darwinian Evolution as an origin of the species is a fairy tale. You are aware I can see the difference I hope.  So Eljay, You're going through all this sherade because of the question raised through the 'header' (title) of Darwin's work !?!?!? That's it??? The whole darn creationist circus for a title which raises a question??? A question which your club has judged only the biblical god, as some of you understand him, can raise??? I'm serious Eljay. What do you mean you have no issue with evolutionary science on the one hand, ... but you have an issue with what it might imply?!?!? Hell, call the dogs off, and cross that bridge when you get there!!! Until that moment, just relax and enjoy 'evolution'!!! I mean to say that I don't believe all life on earth can be traced back to an aomeba (or however it's spelled) Nor do I think a "big bang" occured and out popped rocks, tree's, and gold. Anymore than I think tossing a can of nuts and bolts into a garage will evolve itself into an automobile. Just doesn't fly for me. I look at the world and see a designer. A creator. This is a difficult concept? Now - do I think that virus' are capable of evolving - yes. That mutations in te gene pool would cause evolution within a species. I could see that. But I don't see getting from a fish to a bird. Only in fairy tales. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 08/12/08 04:53 AM
|
|
For me - evolutionary science is not an issue. Darwinian Evolution as an origin of the species is a fairy tale. You are aware I can see the difference I hope. So Eljay, You're going through all this sherade because of the question raised through the 'header' (title) of Darwin's work !?!?!? That's it??? The whole darn creationist circus for a title which raises a question??? A question which your club has judged only the biblical god, as some of you understand him, can raise??? I'm serious Eljay. What do you mean you have no issue with evolutionary science on the one hand, ... but you have an issue with what it might imply?!?!? Hell, call the dogs off, and cross that bridge when you get there!!! Until that moment, just relax and enjoy 'evolution'!!! I mean to say that I don't believe all life on earth can be traced back to an aomeba (or however it's spelled) Nor do I think a "big bang" occured and out popped rocks, tree's, and gold. Anymore than I think tossing a can of nuts and bolts into a garage will evolve itself into an automobile. Just doesn't fly for me. I look at the world and see a designer. A creator. This is a difficult concept? Now - do I think that virus' are capable of evolving - yes. That mutations in te gene pool would cause evolution within a species. I could see that. But I don't see getting from a fish to a bird. Only in fairy tales. Birds are descended from reptilian ancestors. They arose nearly 200 million years ago, during the Mesozoic, the age of dinosaurs. In fact, birds are probably the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs! Occipital condyles enable the skull to articulate with the vertebral column. Both reptiles and birds have only one occipital condyle; mammals have two. Birds and reptiles have a single middle ear bone, the ossicle. Mammals have three middle earbones. The jaws of reptiles and birds are composed of five fused bones, while the mammalian jaw is formed from a single bone, the dentary. The red blood cells of birds and reptiles are nucleated, while those of mammals lack nuclei. Reptilian and avian eggs share the same membranes and structures; avian eggs are more rigid, but this is simply the result of the larger amount of calcium deposited in the shells of birds' eggs. Both hatchling reptiles and birds have an egg tooth for breaking through the eggshell at hatching. There is more. I can go on. I posed this question to Deb and I don’t think she answered. What do the folks who believe in Creationism think the dinosaurs were exactly? Do you simply choose to doubt their existence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ejay questions: Yes - I noticed that you'd read all the way up to page 47 of the other thread on the questions of Leviticus, yet you never once referenced anything I wrote. Only what Deb wrote - and I'd responded numerous times to the questions before Deb even entered the thread. I was just curious about that. Eljay, I’ll tell ya what. You go back over the thread and YOU show me where anything you said was totally ignored and NOT refuted. It seemed to me that everyone who attempted to give a reasonable rebuttel to the questions Krimsa asked were speaking along the same lines. However, it was shown TIME AND AGAIN why your responses did not address the entirety of her questions. I chose to respond using Feral because Feral is the one who constantly says she argues and is NEVER found wrong. I was just pointing out the fact that is only in her mind that she is never found wrong. In this case, though, none of the Christians were able to adequately respond with any semblance of logic that would keep your beliefs in tact. That's fine. I was just curious. No one adressed my post. It was on page 46 - 8th post. I addressed it and rebutted, the 10th post down page 46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just doesn't fly for me. I look at the world and see a designer. A creator. This is a difficult concept? Now - do I think that virus' are capable of evolving - yes. That mutations in te gene pool would cause evolution within a species. I could see that. But I don't see getting from a fish to a bird. Only in fairy tales. Some concepts are difficult. Science is full of them and some of us, no matter how long we study or how hard we try will never be able to master all the particulars. So those of us who can get far enough into the concept take it on faith that the trials and proofs are sufficient to continue in that vein of logic and thought. Some concepts are not so difficult. For instance a god who can go through the process of birth within its own creation and become part of that creation, is easy. A man who dies and is buried and then rises from the dead, easy concept. A man who can hear the word of a god and be believed, easy. A man who hears the word of god and is considered crazy, also easy (for some). But then there are magic tricks that people preform and we just can figure 'em out. But we certainly have FAITH that they were not gods miracles, don't we? But how does one know? Faith is easy, knowledge is difficult. Science take intellect and understanding and a lot of study. Faith takes a basic thing like the words god and miracles and anyone can create a fantasy of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 08/12/08 06:52 AM
|
|
I thought since there is so much apparent ambiguousness to Leviticus and it's stance towards women, let's just cut to the chase and get to some really horrible quotes that will require less interpretation on the part of our Christian friends....
Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women. How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women: Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were: Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father. Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband. They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority. They could not testify in court. They could not appear in public venues. They were not allowed to talk to strangers. They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot lived in this city and his family you can be pretty confident they all knew each other.
Lot ran out to the Angels and washed thier feet as was custom the same as Abraham did. He knew who these 2 visitors were as the mob very possibly did also. When bringing one under your roof as a guest you are responcible for thier safety. Lot offers his Daughters instead. What happens immediately they are rejected by the mob. Do you not think living in such a community that Lot would not know they would reject them? When the Angels saw Lots faith that he would offer anything they blinded the mob. If we skip foward we find Lot is called Rightous. Why? He believed. Then on a little later and it is said a man who does not take care of his family is worse than in infidel. Lot took care of his family as Abraham did his. As he also was going to offer Issac as a sacrafice. He believed though that the giver of life could also bring him back. But he did not hold back from Yahweh.He did not put anything before Yahweh. Because Yahweh tells us that you must be willing to leave all for him. When this happens thier is no fear. But faith and love knowing that all will be taken care of. Know we are but a speck of dust in time. Yahshua said seek 1st the Kingdom of Yahweh. For tommorrow will take care of itself. Blessings...Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
negative light?
Who was Deborah? Was she viewed in a negative light? Viels are the same as today. A virgin wore a viel but not after marraige. At most weddings the viel is symbolic of the fiance being pure. Shalom..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where do you get your information from?
Referring to the women in the Bible as in Afganistan is a gross misinterpretation. Just for 1 when Jacob saw Rachel under the oak tree he went to her and she put her viel down out of respect. She was not in her fathers house. Niether as she when Jacob's servants found her and she gave them water as Jacob had said to look for. Your information about what the scriptures say seem to of come from a source that hates the scriptures and puts forth lies to discredit them. Study them yoursellf. You may find they say a completely different context than is taught alot of the time.. Blessings..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 08/12/08 07:39 AM
|
|
For me - evolutionary science is not an issue. Darwinian Evolution as an origin of the species is a fairy tale. You are aware I can see the difference I hope. So Eljay, You're going through all this sherade because of the question raised through the 'header' (title) of Darwin's work !?!?!? That's it??? The whole darn creationist circus for a title which raises a question??? A question which your club has judged only the biblical god, as some of you understand him, can raise??? I'm serious Eljay. What do you mean you have no issue with evolutionary science on the one hand, ... but you have an issue with what it might imply?!?!? Hell, call the dogs off, and cross that bridge when you get there!!! Until that moment, just relax and enjoy 'evolution'!!! I mean to say that I don't believe all life on earth can be traced back to an aomeba (or however it's spelled) Nor do I think a "big bang" occured and out popped rocks, tree's, and gold. Anymore than I think tossing a can of nuts and bolts into a garage will evolve itself into an automobile. Just doesn't fly for me. I look at the world and see a designer. A creator. This is a difficult concept? Now - do I think that virus' are capable of evolving - yes. That mutations in te gene pool would cause evolution within a species. I could see that. But I don't see getting from a fish to a bird. Only in fairy tales. Ok Eljay, Do you not agree, given the fact that you borrow the 'logical-reasonning-evidence' form, that it is difficult to remain in that form, and give it any credibility when only one side is subjected to 'proofing'. Fish to bird, overwhelming evidence pointing in that direction, but since they haven't delivered the fanatical creationist deception of a missing link to 'feral's door step, it gets discarded as a fairy tale, and some of you go around suggesting it shouldn't even be discussed amongst friends. On the other hand, man to god, with no evidence whatsoever, is for you and some others, a piece of cake of a fact!!! I simply submit to you Eljay that you can believe anything you wish, but the form you choose to discuss your beliefs, absolutely MATTERS. That being, the 'logical-reasoning-evidence' form will NEVER be the appropriate form for spiritual, religious, or faith based discussions. You can't reason faith! Facts and faith will never mix. And it is something no authentic believer should ever wish for either. It could be said very simply that if one's faith was ever proven, that person would no longer HAVE FAITH!!! ... and that would be a horrible human tragedy! Think of it Eljay, if your beliefs have crossed the fine line from faith to fact, you would no longer be operating from faith. If god exists for many of you as a matter of fact, as you claim and defend so ardently, then what is the point of having faith. If you all 'know', as is so often written on these threads, then this is no longer a matter for faith based discussions. If you REALLY KNOW, I, and many others will bow right out of this conversation. For to know a belief as fact is PURE AND ADULTERATED DELUSION. It gets reduced to a boring and redundant selling ploy of a 'WHITER THAN WHITE' detergent for the masses. And then of course all other 'ideas', scientific or otherwise, are seen as competition that must be 'eradicated' through empty and hollow mercantile slogans (apologetics is the protestant marketing sausage slogan maker). So Eljay, using the wrong form to discuss religion, or faith based topics, syphons all the credibility of the carrier. Bible inerrancy was a human mistake! It kills faith! Not a good thing for humanity! Let's regroup, and move on! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The text of Genesis 19 implies that God approved of Lot's behavior, even though he made an offer of his virgin daughters to be raped. This approval would have been extended to Lot's family as well. But God apparently had a fierce anger directed at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur) dumped from above. According to the story, he killed all of the men and women of Sodom, as well as all the innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. who lived in the city. Once again, god at his finest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had heard that birds were descendants of dinosaurs but I had not heard all of that other information about them. Thanks.
Okay so now we have birds.... descendants of dinosaurs. And a donkey who can reproduce, a new species. Proof of evolution. That is two animals. JB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah JB it's very interesting. I have even thought as a young kid, holding my friends cockatiel on my arm, they have a somewhat reptilian look to them. I don’t mean that in a negative way of course, simply in their body movements. You can see it. The terodactyls would be the most apparent as to what eventually would evolve into avian. The term "raptor" refers to a type of bird often characterized by a hooked beak, sharp talons, and keen eyesight. Velosa raptors were also a particular species of dinosaur that existed during the Jurassic period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was more than sodom and gommorrah but all the surrounding villages.
These people were evil, spreading evil. When Yahweh decided to do this Abraham pleaded that he would not do this. Just as Moses did. He said he would not destroy it if thier were even 10 rightous people in the cities. Apperently thier was only 1.Lot. His family is covered by him. That is to say the family unit goes down through him to his wife and so on. He is at the head though. His daughters were allowed to live even though incest was a familiar thing to them in the cities. How many were in these cities know body knows. It would seem to be alot.These type acts /actions that was the norm would continue to spread if it was not stopped. It was also an example of Yahweh's power if these things you found pleasure in doing. This was a time when Abraham had been told his descendents would be as the stars of heavens. These were times of cleansing since the great flood. You find Joshua killing everything that this wickedness could not spread. We see things differently than Yahweh. As death is like sleep and he can bring forth the dead at will as Yahshua did to Lazarus. So go ahead and blame Yahweh and make him a tyrant.You see the things that he does for judgement but recongonize little he does for you everyday of your life. For Angels are all around and they save you when you do not even know they have done it. How many miracles do you hear of where someone lived or a child was found in a collapsed building unharmed. We are a society of blamers. Its his fault. We say I AM. I need nothing else. When in reality we need all the help we can get..Blessings...Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just doesn't fly for me. I look at the world and see a designer. A creator. This is a difficult concept? Now - do I think that virus' are capable of evolving - yes. That mutations in te gene pool would cause evolution within a species. I could see that. But I don't see getting from a fish to a bird. Only in fairy tales. Some concepts are difficult. Science is full of them and some of us, no matter how long we study or how hard we try will never be able to master all the particulars. So those of us who can get far enough into the concept take it on faith that the trials and proofs are sufficient to continue in that vein of logic and thought. So what I assume you mean - is that we're "waiting on the evidence" and what is expected is that I have faith it will arrive? And when it gets here it will demonstrate how there couldn't possibly be a creator of the world I see around me. So - it's a matter of "faith" then. Faith in the scientists is more legitimate than faith in God. Let me think on that. Some concepts are not so difficult. For instance a god who can go through the process of birth within its own creation and become part of that creation, is easy. A man who dies and is buried and then rises from the dead, easy concept. A man who can hear the word of a god and be believed, easy. A man who hears the word of god and is considered crazy, also easy (for some). But then there are magic tricks that people preform and we just can figure 'em out. But we certainly have FAITH that they were not gods miracles, don't we? But how does one know? The argument goes both ways. They say that the earth is billions of years old - man but millions (pick a number) - these concepts are easier to comprehend than the biblical ones? At least - for me - I can read scripture and know why God becomes part of the creation - dies, and raises from the dead. People don't have difficulty understanding this - they have difficulty believing it. It is an appeal to desire - not logic. So - The appeal to me is to reason out that God's miracles are explained away by random chance and the chaos of the big bang? If I explode a garage - why doesn't it evolve into a high rise? Sure - that seems absurd to ask - doesn't it. However - I'm not following the idea that from a massive explosion of material in space that I'm going to get a tree in one place, a rock in another, and a fish who desires to eventially walk upright. These are miracles beyond my reasoning of scientists "coming up with the links". Faith is easy, knowledge is difficult. Science take intellect and understanding and a lot of study. Faith takes a basic thing like the words god and miracles and anyone can create a fantasy of them. I'm not sue where your assessment of faith being easy and knowledge hard comes from. To me - it is the opposite. One can accumulate knowledge with little effort, and a reasonable amount of time. How do you accumulate faith? Where do you find it? You get knowledge from experience. Either your own - or from that of others who document it in books. Faith does not exist in a fanticy. That is not faith. You can call it that - but putting faith into the fact that Unicorns exist, means there is an expectation that a unicorn will appear and substanciate that faith with the experience of existance. If it is evident that there is not going to be an expectation of experience - is it really "faith"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought since there is so much apparent ambiguousness to Leviticus and it's stance towards women, let's just cut to the chase and get to some really horrible quotes that will require less interpretation on the part of our Christian friends.... Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women. How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women: Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were: Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father. Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband. They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority. They could not testify in court. They could not appear in public venues. They were not allowed to talk to strangers. They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light. As to the reference from Genesis - I have to ask, "why do you think Lot offered his daughters?" Your perspective on this matters as to how you are interpreting the passage based on it's context. As to the references to the Taliban - these are Islamic interpretations - radical at that. What have they to do with the Hebrew Scriptures? This is comparing apples to Aardvarks. They both start with A. Comparison over. Am I missing the point here? I see no corrilation between the Taliban and Lot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me - evolutionary science is not an issue. Darwinian Evolution as an origin of the species is a fairy tale. You are aware I can see the difference I hope. So Eljay, You're going through all this sherade because of the question raised through the 'header' (title) of Darwin's work !?!?!? That's it??? The whole darn creationist circus for a title which raises a question??? A question which your club has judged only the biblical god, as some of you understand him, can raise??? I'm serious Eljay. What do you mean you have no issue with evolutionary science on the one hand, ... but you have an issue with what it might imply?!?!? Hell, call the dogs off, and cross that bridge when you get there!!! Until that moment, just relax and enjoy 'evolution'!!! I mean to say that I don't believe all life on earth can be traced back to an aomeba (or however it's spelled) Nor do I think a "big bang" occured and out popped rocks, tree's, and gold. Anymore than I think tossing a can of nuts and bolts into a garage will evolve itself into an automobile. Just doesn't fly for me. I look at the world and see a designer. A creator. This is a difficult concept? Now - do I think that virus' are capable of evolving - yes. That mutations in te gene pool would cause evolution within a species. I could see that. But I don't see getting from a fish to a bird. Only in fairy tales. Ok Eljay, Do you not agree, given the fact that you borrow the 'logical-reasonning-evidence' form, that it is difficult to remain in that form, and give it any credibility when only one side is subjected to 'proofing'. Fish to bird, overwhelming evidence pointing in that direction, but since they haven't delivered the fanatical creationist deception of a missing link to 'feral's door step, it gets discarded as a fairy tale, and some of you go around suggesting it shouldn't even be discussed amongst friends. On the other hand, man to god, with no evidence whatsoever, is for you and some others, a piece of cake of a fact!!! I simply submit to you Eljay that you can believe anything you wish, but the form you choose to discuss your beliefs, absolutely MATTERS. That being, the 'logical-reasoning-evidence' form will NEVER be the appropriate form for spiritual, religious, or faith based discussions. You can't reason faith! Facts and faith will never mix. And it is something no authentic believer should ever wish for either. It could be said very simply that if one's faith was ever proven, that person would no longer HAVE FAITH!!! ... and that would be a horrible human tragedy! Think of it Eljay, if your beliefs have crossed the fine line from faith to fact, you would no longer be operating from faith. If god exists for many of you as a matter of fact, as you claim and defend so ardently, then what is the point of having faith. If you all 'know', as is so often written on these threads, then this is no longer a matter for faith based discussions. If you REALLY KNOW, I, and many others will bow right out of this conversation. For to know a belief as fact is PURE AND ADULTERATED DELUSION. It gets reduced to a boring and redundant selling ploy of a 'WHITER THAN WHITE' detergent for the masses. And then of course all other 'ideas', scientific or otherwise, are seen as competition that must be 'eradicated' through empty and hollow mercantile slogans (apologetics is the protestant marketing sausage slogan maker). So Eljay, using the wrong form to discuss religion, or faith based topics, syphons all the credibility of the carrier. Bible inerrancy was a human mistake! It kills faith! Not a good thing for humanity! Let's regroup, and move on! Voile; Here - lets take this a step deeper. We are in full and absolute agreement over the concept of faith, and what it leads to - and how substanciative it is. In this - we are not viewing two sides of a coin, I too step back and see the whole coin as you do. My point is that this whole "evolution" thing needs to be removed from the "logical-reasoning-evidence" thing and pulled back to "faith based" - where it belongs. Don't you think? Those of us who see the coin - don't question that these fossel records exist - or that there is evolution within the species. Thes concepts remain in the "L-R-E" realm. But the extrappelation backwards into time - the random choices of this species beoming that species - how does that fit into the "L-R-E" classification? Why is it that carbon dating is used as proof when it works - but when it doesn't the samples are discarded. These questions are not "religion based". When I was an Atheist/Agnostic (since I never swallowed the big bang theory - a requirement for Atheists) I asked the same questions of my phD friends at Harvard. I'm still waiting some 30 years later for an answer that is not appealling to my "faith". To me - evolution is a faith based "religion", and deserves more time on this forum than it would on a science forum. (If we had one) Have we regrouped? |
|
|
|
|
