Hello vhehn [read Seinfeld greeting Newman ] "..Willfull ignorance..." ? Now that is a rather large statement ! Surely you are not implying that some people come to the conclusion that the Biblical doctrine of creation is a reliable scenario for the understanding of "first things" other than through much study and thought ? Your statement , if I may, is rather authoritarian in its implied demand for conformance to a doctrine that you have embraced. "..book of primitive myths.." ? Myth (mith), n., a legend; poetic fiction; a fabulous narrative founded on some event, especially in the early existence of a people, and embodying their ideas as to their own origin, their gods, natural phenomena, etc. [Greek] I could easily make the statement that the current versions of evolutionary saga would also fit the above definition of "myth". We both stand on the edge of a great precipice regarding our desired understanding of "the beginning"......we were not there. It is by faith, I would respectfully argue, that we both hold to our respective doctrines.
how much thought is put into study when you are indoctrinated into rejecting every piece of evidence that does not agree with the book? you cannot find the truth of your belief unless you are open to the possibility that your belief is not true. the scientist is forced to modify his conclusions every time new evidence is found. the theist is taught to modify evidence to fit his conclusions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related
Hello Vista [ read Newman greeting Seinfeld ] So that I may better understand which of my ignorant and shameful beliefs is causing you to be shocked.... Which denomination of the Church of Evolution are we desiring to debate.......Biological, Chemical or Cosmic ?
Well, speaking for myself, quite a lot of study. Look, macro-evolution is speculative, as it must be, as any system must be that is wrestling with past events, for which there are no recurring observable patterns. Macro-evolution is not empirical science. Since the theoretical evolutionists need billions and billions of years to make the "saga" palatable, and since the genesis of the macro saga is the dogma of "microbe to man" it would seem that we should be able to observe [ since each day in our present is billions and billions of years + 1 day ], a microbe on its prophetic journey to manhood. If you can supply this, then I will convert to your religion.
If macro evolution is speculative then so is gravity. Strange how you have no problem with a prophetic journey of "creator - dirt - human" attracting no validatory evidence, but stumble on scientific journeys containing lots of it. Superstition and the Darkside have much to answer for.
why do you think over 11000 christian clergy members went to the trouble to sign this letter supporting evolution? their study must have led them in another direction than yours. the difference is theirs led them to agree with the brightest minds in science based on our best evidenve and yours led you to believe the writings of stone age men who had no concept of science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as âone theory among othersâ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." By September 26, 2008, the Clergy Letter Project had collected 11,685 signatures of US Christian clergy
It is hard for me to understand why out of an unlimited number of alternative possibilities creationism is the theory most used to disprove evolution. Creationism by its most basic ingredients cannot disprove anything. People shouting at the mountaintops their unwavering belief in evolution is no less laughable. Once again we should all remember Socrates wise words. I for one will believe when God comes down from the heavens slaps me with a lightning bolt and explains evolution with undeniable proof. Even then my first thought will be "is he sure".
Sad and funny at the same time. It's amazing what incredible fairly tales people will buy into to to assuage their fear of death. I personally like them one about the sky opening up and a ram with 27 eyes descending from the sky and a lake of fire and brimstone appearing and angels with trumpets and the righteous going up, up and away. Sounds a bit like an acid trip, doesn't it?
Good morning Stu, "..Creator-dirt-human.." Now I must admit that you did evoke a chuckle from me...... So you have invited our good friend Gravity to the debate... May I invite another ? Let us listen to that sage, Mr. The Law of Entropy [aka The second law of thermodynamics]........ I would venture to guess that you are familiar with some of his speeches, in which he states: 1) All systems in the real world tend to travel towards disorganization and decreased complexity. 2) Mr. Entropy is valid, without exception, whether we speak of physical, chemical, biological or geological systems. Mr. Entropy is even recognized by the more learned adherents of the Church of Macro, as a very formidable sceptic of their dogma. Macro-evolutionists MUST believe that complexity is vertical, from simple to majestic, from microbe to man........Horizontal is anathema........ I would now begin a game of word-play, using your comments: Strange, indeed, how you evidently have no problem with the fact that all observable so-called evolutionary changes are horizontal and trivial OR downward toward deterioration.......and yet it appears that you stumble on the FACT our biological systems seem to present a fully functional and complete operating system and that empirical scientific data for a vertical march towards complexity [ from simplicity] does not exist.