Evolution works in mysterious ways

Lost User

Ilíon wrote:

One can also discredit a "sceintific" "theory" via *reason*

You have made a basic assumption that reason plays no part in doing research and publishing it in a journal. There are no absolute truths in science. It is just a means to create models that explain observed phenomena. Those models last only until someone observes something that cannot be explained by the theory. Anyone who considers any theory absolute truth does not understand science at all. Of course, you can discredit a theory just for your satisfaction and then peddle it on 'Soapboxes' on the Internet, or you can publish your findings somewhere that is accepted under the current norms. Why are you so upset with science? Is it because we live longer than our previous generations, have better living conditions, more conveniences? I find it hard to understand the specific part of the accepted process that you object to. If you have evidence or reasoning that disproves evolution or any other accepted scientific theory, you owe it to society that you put that for peer scrutiny on an appropriate forum. After all, all the conveniences that you enjoy have been the result of scientific process.

Matthew Faithfull

Paul Watson wrote:

Does this mean you believe in the literal truth of the Bible?

Yes. Does that mean that I believe whatever you or someone else thinks some small part of it taken out of context means? No.

Paul Watson wrote:

modern day literal truth

As far as I know modern day truth is exactly the same as it always been? Did someone rewire the universe while I was on lunch?

Paul Watson wrote:

I can tolerate the Jesus kind but have great difficulty respecting those who treat the Bible

How can there be any contradiction between the two as the Bible is the source for everything the non-believer can know about Jesus. "All scripture is God breathed and good for teaching." This is either true or false. If its false the whole book is worthless, if it's true the whole book is true.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Vincent Reynolds

Q: Are we not men? A: We are DeVo!

Matthew Faithfull

Ilíon wrote:

you personally have the double constraint that you yourself tend to embrace un-reason and anti-reason.

Something you have thrice failed to evidence. The time is coming when I will have to call you on that.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Oakman

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

difference that is hard to get accross to non-believers

try me.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The Church is defined as the people of God, those he has redeemed from every tribe and tounge and nation

Normally thats called Christendom. Back where I come from (said the Wizard to Dorothy) you had to be able to say "Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen," in order to belong to the Church.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Only God gets to say who is in the Church and who is not

So Christ lied to Peter, eh?

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The Church does not do such things though some genuine believers may get mixed up in them

Convenient. Kinda reminds me of my kids. They gladly took credit for anything that went right, but "Not me" was the one who did anything wrong.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Al Beback wrote:

Adam and Eve's children having incest is neat. But people's ability to be coerced into believing in magic tops them all.

Al, Adam and Eve didn't have any daughters. :)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Paul Watson

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

How can there be any contradiction between the two as the Bible is the source for everything the non-believer can know about Jesus.

Actually there are writings of Jesus outside of the Bible. Some suppressed by the Church, others part of the histories of other nations and peoples who came into contact with Jesus. The Romans obviously also wrote of him.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

As far as I know modern day truth is exactly the same as it always been? Did someone rewire the universe while I was on lunch?

Apologies, I wrote poorly. I meant that some people believe the Bible to be literally true but they claim it only pertains to the life and times in which the events happened. e.g. pork being an unclean food is patently untrue in this day and age but was true back in ancient times. Then you get people who think that everything written in the Bible holds as true today as when it was written. e.g. don't eat pork, ever.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Matthew Faithfull

Oakman wrote:

You just said there were

I did not. Quote away, but read first to avoid embarassment.

Oakman wrote:

how about answering the question?

If you mean the same question then the answer is all of it in the NIV at least once. Most of it more than 3 times and although I don't keep records the majority of it 10 or more times, and if you count thousands of hours of sermons I've been pretty well taught. If you are as you claim a thoroughly read Methodist Lay Preacher then what on earth are you doing attacking me and siding with evolutionists, you clearly know better.:confused:

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Oakman

CataclysmicQuantum wrote:

I need a girl young, at least not fat, good looking

And all you've ever gotten is your hand. I wonder why.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

73Zeppelin

Oh please. His level of mathematical sophisticaion is comparable to that of a 4 year old child starting junior kindergarten. It's also poorly reasoned and in some cases just plain wrong. No wonder his last name is "Gitt".

Paul Watson

Ilíon wrote:

reason to 'atheists' is like kryptonite to Superman.

Cute. Reason is what we base everything on. I do admit atheists can be difficult to reason with however as we tend to have been quoted the Bible as valid points against our arguments. We grow weary with scripture and do not always give enough time and respect to every Jesus freak who comes along. No offense, you are just boring.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Brady Kelly

Sushi?

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

Matthew Faithfull

Oakman wrote:

Back where I come from (said the Wizard to Dorothy) you had to be able to say ...in order to belong to the Church.

No that was the church, getting into the Church is little more difficult.

Oakman wrote:

So Christ lied to Peter, eh?

No

Oakman wrote:

They gladly took credit for anything that went right, but "Not me" was the one who did anything wrong.

I suspect even your church taught individual responsibility before God.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

73Zeppelin

No wonder we don't get along. I'm from Orkney.

73Zeppelin

Oh Paul, I've lost countless hours trying to discuss things with these guys and the experience can only be likened to having your teeth pulled with no anaesthetic: pointless, disappointing, bloody and painful. Don't repeat my mistake.

Oakman

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

I did not. Quote away, but read first to avoid embarassment.

Better yet, I'll quote in full: "Even you could pick the consistent from the inconsistent, or perhaps not. I have had the privellege of good teaching over the years from some of the best pastors in the UK. I'm told told my current pastor has written around 100 books, most of them probably way over my head. I'd love to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic but I'm afraid languages are not my thing. What you understand when you read enough scripture is that it's overall theme is the nature and character of God. Now remeber this is the same God that I know so it's like reading about a good friend. Not difficult to spot any glaring errors." (Emphasis added)

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Most of it more than 3 times and although I don't

I didn't count any of the mosts or maybes or somewhats or scripture readings for the day. If you didn't sit down and read it straight through, then you didn't read it. Sermons are a great way to be lead astray. I am surprised at how oftem the bible is quote out of context by folks who should know better.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

you clearly know better.

Exactly. I do. I find the concept of a god who interferes with his own creation; or needs the worship of his creations; or who has any interest in the petty little rules that each denomination promulgates (they all have a thing about donations though - they are remarkably consistent about that) to the point of enforcing them with everlasting torment to be ludicrous. Something that is omnipotent and omniscient would not be bothered. If, on the other hand, there is a god like the one you believe in, then I, like Shaw's Don Juan, consider Hell to be a far more convivial place to spend eternity.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Matthew Faithfull

Paul Watson wrote:

Actually there are writings of Jesus outside of the Bible. Some suppressed by the Church

There are no credible 1st century writings suppressed even by the church and certainly not by the Church. There are a couple of laughable modern day islamic forgeries and some incidental scribblings of the non Christian Ethiopian Gnostics dated before 500 AD. Neither has any bearing on the person or works of Christ. I'm not aware of any Roman writing referencing Jesus specifically but Josephus, a Jew working for the Romans around AD 70 may well have referred to him and certainly referred to the Christians. His works are non religous historical accounts generally taken to be accurate if a little biased towards his paymasters and apparently contain nothing in contradiction to the Bible. Clearly some people claim the Bible to be literally true but don't understand it. Jesus was clear that he had come to fulfill the Old Testament law, to complete its purpose and render it thereby obselete. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. This contains the whole law, everything else is an expansion and application of it. The Old Testament law did not become wrong it is merely superceeded. Those whose understanding of this is so limited they cannot eat Pork with a clean concience should not eat it and those that can may do so except where it would cause distress or temptation to those who cannot.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

R Giskard Reventlov

So you are delusional: quick lock him up: he's a godbot. I'm happy (in a strange, magnanimous kind of way) that you believe the voices in your head but, and trust me on this, there is no god, no afterlife, no nothing. You die, you're dead, that's it. Nice god, btw, that allowed 100,000 innocents to die in Burma. Bet that gives you a warm glow at night.

me, me, me

Matthew Faithfull

Oakman wrote:

Not difficult to spot any glaring errors

And as I've said I never spotted any. Quite sure I would have done if there were any though :)

Oakman wrote:

If you didn't sit down and read it straight through, then you didn't read it.

Not strictly true.

Oakman wrote:

I find the concept of a god who

You find your own small mean broken down concept of God distastefull. Well on that we can at least agree. God's concpet of God on the other hand well that will be stretching my mind to new horizons for eternity. :-D

Oakman wrote:

Something that is omnipotent and omniscient would not ...

You see right at that point you fall flat on your face and spontaneously combust. You know less about what something omnipotent and omniscient would do than you do about canine dentistry in zero gravity, which is strange considering you've read all about exactly what someone omnipotent and omniscient has done and a great deal of why and how. Clearly you didn't get it which is truly, truly, sad. :((

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Ilion

Call all you want: I've *seen* your general posts and so I *know* that you're little different in general approach from the pseudo-atheists and half-baked "Darwinists" you're having a spat with at the moment. That in this thread on this subject you've been trying to argue by the "rules" of logic and reason, and doing a fair job, is great! I commend you ... in this limited context. Clearly, you *can* reason reasonably. When you do it consistently, then you can think about "calling me on that" ... though, of course, at that hoped-for time, there will be no need to do that.