Hi folks,
Just a testimony interruption here.

Miles is the best person here to ACTUALLY discuss scripture with. He is one of the most educated in that area (whom I’ve had the pleasure of communicating with). He is also able to be consistent, that means he does not have a point of view about one area that is not consistently maintained throughout.

This is good testimony because I am an atheist and I happen to believe that the scripture is full of parables which are intended to be read and interpreted on many moral levels. So we’ve had some good discussions and it’s true we do not always see eye-to-eye but I have always respected his knowledge and his ability to be patient and to consider another (valid) point of view.

I think it would be interesting to post a parable so that others could read it and give an opinion about what it might be teaching. Without anyone claiming a right or wrong, but to explain why you think it means one thing versus another. You don’t have to be a ‘believer’ to discuss morality no matter where it comes from, scripture, your old Aunt, or the kid next door. Open up people.

Semester break in about two weeks, maybe I’ll just that.

By the way Miles – when I took a peek and saw this thread, my first thought was “oh no Miles has lost it” But I was wrong, you got me – you got everyone with this post.

Shalom Miles - Everyone

Wow well educated in fairy tales. Great. I'm sure that can make you a lot with a college education. Oh. Wait i guess harvard offers religion as a major ... i suppose there are a lot of suckers out there. Congradulations.

no need to apologize, i'm hardly uncomfortable. indeed, i'm amused by threads such as this whether authored by the god fearing or the atheists.



the homework is not mine to do. you're the one who needs to back up such a rediculous assertian that darwin was a fruit cake. so back it up with your books that go to the greek and hebrew and show us where they suggest that darwin was a fruit cake. that is the topic of your thread is it not? find in greek or hebrew or latin or anyplace else where darwin said we came from monkeys. you want backup? back up your statement?




you still have it wrong. i'm not holier than thou. you put yourself above darwin by suggesting he's a fruit cake. you've placed yourself as holier than anyone who accepts the theory of evolution as credible. it's your holier than thou attitude that has your nose stuck in your bible so you've no time to read what darwin actually said before uttering such absurdities about humans evolving from monkeys.



i've no interest in the least for discussing scripture. you never mentioned scripture in your op. your fruit cake bit was simply preposperous and you have no srcriptural reference to suggest that darwin was a fruit cake or that he said that we evolved from monkeys. so why would scripture be something i'd discuss with regards to a biological theory?

I never made it back to reply but I took his point

he was being semi sarcastic

there are four or five people who seem to think they own the religious threads and the political threads and no discussion of any subject is possible without them taking it and turning it into their own personal crusade to debunk whatever is their personal monomania.

and just what I was complaining about he was portaying with this thread (intentionally)

what does his "knowledge" of scripture have to do with such an absurd asertion that darwin is a friut cake because he says we evolved from monkeys? what scripture parables can be interpreted to even suggest that this absurdity in anyway connects with sensible discourse when darwin never said such a thing? it's his time spent gaining his "knowledge" of scripture that has left him with no time to research his own topic. you call that "knowledgeable"?

Besides Theology degrees, religion is studied by history majors, by the field of psychology, in anthropology and in the field of philosophy, which any science major knows must be part of any scientific program - even in biology...

But to think that knowledge only comes through college education is not giving due to all those in the past who never attended college, or barely had an education - but somehow we have advanced in knowledge and technology thanks to bright thinkers and persistence.

No one person can be know everything about every field and sometimes even the highly educated end up knowing more about a field than the one they majored in.

We live in a world where knowledge is at our fingertips - now, more than ever before, we cannot discount the knowledge of other, simply because their knowledge is not accompanied by a degree.

Did you know that people actually follow concentrations stemming from their fields of study in which they research and critically evaluate 'fairy tales' and folk lore. Would you discredit that kind of knowledge, even if the person holds a degree? Would you discredit the knowledge of those holding a BA degree instead of a BS degree.

In the end it is all just a matter 'degrees' and only the those who hold themselves above others would spit on the silver platter when knowledge is presented as a gift.

So buy your knowledge, many of us do, but don't discount what comes your way for free.

Science doesn't prove anything, it eliminates possibilities. All you have to do to refute Evolution is come up with a better theory, that covers the data more completely and work to get that theory accepted by scientists.

Has anyone heard of the book "Darwin's Sacred Cause"? I was thinking of reading it, but don't want to bother if it's already been shown to be unreliable. I'll look it up myself, just wondering if anyone had any info off the top of their heads.

of course sience proves nothing. even hawkings and einstein acknowledge that no theory can ever be proven. sure you can come up with a better theory than evolution. question is, will your new theory be accepted as credible and by whom. science hardly eliminates possiblilities. before the hubble telescope we had no idea of the possibilities of dark matter and other cosmos phenomena. every time we answer one question of science it opens many other possibilities we never even conjured before. possibilities abound from such relatively new disciplines such as quantum mechanics which didn't even exist a century ago. so yes, hypothosize an alternative to evolution and work to get it accepted as a viable theory by scientists. i for one look forward to such a breakthrough. but for your hypothosis to be accepted as a scientific theory, it must make predictions that can be tested to render consistent results using the strict scrutiny of scientific methodolgy. scripture or testemony simply will not work.

Darwin offer a "theory" for the organic version of how through happenstance circumstance the existence called life came in to being in a struggle for the most fittest to survive called "Natural Selection"

it's only a theory but a struggle out of the sea to survive and evolve into a higher lifeform seem far less "fruitcake-ishness" than believing that the human race is nothing more than what an entity created from dirt so that he can rule over them using threats and torment and mass murdering them on a whim

Darwin denounced his own theory...

That's all I'm going to say.


So are you telling me that we understand the theory better than the one who came up with it?.....

just saying it's only a theory ...just as religion is only a belief that the believers constantly change because supposedly they have a better understanding about the religion than God

You seem so bitter and angry. I gave a simple answer to the OP. Science cannot prove anything, science can only disprove possibilities. It's a process of elimination. Why do you feel the need to take such a hostile position on the subject? Why do you feel the need to mix in scripture and testimony...those are in the purview of RELIGION, we are talking about SCIENCE. Don't you know the difference between the two?

You are also wrong, the scientific method is a process of finding possible explanations for a phenomena and then eliminating those possibilities. Scientists once believed that the earth was flat...that possibility has been disproven, correct? It was once believed that the sun orbited the earth, that possibility has been disproven, correct? Or are you saying that the earth might be flat and the sun might orbit the earth? It's one or the other. Either those possibilities were ruled out through the scientific method and you were wrong when you asserted "science hardly eliminates possibilities" or you believe that the earth might be flat and the sun might orbit the earth.

No, he didn't. A rumor started that he recanted on his death bed, his wife (a devout Christian) denied that rumor.

Darwin never denounced Evolution or embraced Christianity.

Ok Miles, how about this: you take the Free Thought bible quiz and then discuss with me the answers and your thoughts on them? Yo can google as I think I have to pee again, damn it.

Miles, I have found many of your past posts to be very well thought out. You have a great deal of bible-related knowledge which I don't have, and I've enjoyed learning from you. But I don't believe that this silly statement above reflects well on you. This is hardly a starting point for an intelligent discussion... maybe this is just an expression of frustration? Or are you trolling?

Do you honestly think Darwin is the originator of the ideas related to the label 'theory of evolution' ? If you erroneously think of the 'theory of evolution' in the singular - you then proceed to believe that Darwin 'came up' with the whole of it?

And yes, I would fully expect modern scientists to have a (relatively speaking) deeper understanding of these ideas someone who died so long ago.

Di,

I just read your post, and I agree. Miles is a great guy, and has, in the past, demonstrated maturity and depth of thought.

sorry. meant no hostility and i'm certainly not bitter or angry. as i reread your answer i realize that i was biased by some earlier exchanges between you and i where you made comments about the sciences that i found absurd. take you're comment here for instance, "science can only disprove possibilities". absurd. yes science often disproves possibilities but are you saying hubble did not reveal many possibilities we never even thought of before?



hahaha. i think you missed a few posts in this thread. i never brought up scripture. i never bring up scripture. i completely denounce scripture as having any relevance ESPECIALLY IN A SCIENCE TOPIC as i denounced it when it was first mentioned in this thread.
it's the op who is touting and being praised for his "knowledge" of scripture. i understand full well that scripture and testimoney "are in the purview of RELIGION and are completely nonsensical when talking about science.




well we'll simply have to remain in disagreement about what scientific method is i suppose as we each think the other wrong on this issue.

indeed we do understand the theory better than the one who came up with it. darwin had nowhere near the evidence and the tools for testing that we have today. we have a better understanding of every theory after we've had time to test the theory.