Evolution? How?

Forfeiture in your favor is the ultimate high?

Hmmmmmm.

Frank,

For me, it applies. You deal with that. Or don't, doesn't matter to me.

The only thing I am on your case about is the fact that you seem to have to be right and the opposing side wrong.

Frank....
I, for one, do not care if you are wrong. I do not care if you think I am wrong. I believe what I believe and if that offends you or upsets you or grieves you to think that I do not agree with you. So be it. It is a matter of belief...not right or wrong. If you do not believe that will not affect any one of us who do. Why do you let it bother you that we do believe?

You always use the words "your side". This is not some schoolyard game, Frank. It does not have to be "your side" and "our side".

Live and let live.

Yeah...and that doesn't apply to you, right?

Gimme a break.

We all are arguing what we consider to be the "right" position.

I, at least, acknowledge that I do not know if a God exists...or if there are no gods.

You insist that you KNOW there is a God.

Talk about wanting to be right and the opposing side wrong!

Even if there is a God....I acknowledge that I do not know what that God is like, what pleases or offends it, and what, if anything, it expects of humans.

You insist that not only do you KNOW the God exists...but that you KNOW what the God is like, what pleases and offends it, and what it expects of humans.

Talk about wanting to be right and the opposing side wrong!

Egad.

What a bunch of blather coming from your side. What a bunch of projection.

Frank, you are totally missing my point. I do not tell you that your guesses are wrong. I have never said that.you were wrong and I was right. You, however, have stated in many instances how it is the woman's right and blah, blah, blah. This is the reason we vote. We all have opinions. You have a right to your opinion and we have a right to ours.

And, I guess the dictionary is wrong then? If you don't like the fact that I know something for me and you don't know something for you, then Frank, that is your problem. I have no problem with you not knowing so why do you have a problem with my knowing? See? You appear to have to be right here. If I don't say that I don't know, you think I am wrong.

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

Yeah...and that doesn't apply to you, right?

Gimme a break.

We all are arguing what we consider to be the "right" position.

I, at least, acknowledge that I do not know if a God exists...or if there are no gods.

You insist that you KNOW there is a God.

Talk about wanting to be right and the opposing side wrong!

Even if there is a God....I acknowledge that I do not know what that God is like, what pleases or offends it, and what, if anything, it expects of humans.

You insist that not only do you KNOW the God exists...but that you KNOW what the God is like, what pleases and offends it, and what it expects of humans.

Talk about wanting to be right and the opposing side wrong!

Egad.

What a bunch of blather coming from your side. What a bunch of projection.

Frank, you are totally missing my point. I do not tell you that your guesses are wrong. I have never said that.you were wrong and I was right. You, however, have stated in many instances how it is the woman's right and blah, blah, blah. This is the reason we vote. We all have opinions. You have a right to your opinion and we have a right to ours.

And Frank, it really doesn't matter if you understand this or not. It doesn't change the facts. I do not tell you are right or wrong. I tell you what my feelings, thoughts, believes, etc. are FOR ME! I don't tell them what they are for YOU.

And what is it with this you having such a problem because I KNOW something? So, if you don't KNOW, then you don't KNOW. But, you keep telling me that at least you acknowledge that you don't know. Well, that's probably because you don't! It doesn't mean you know what the heck I know or not!

And, I guess the dictionary is wrong then? If you don't like the fact that I know something for me and you don't know something for you, then Frank, that is your problem. I have no problem with you not knowing so why do you have a problem with my knowing? See? You appear to have to be right here. If I don't say that I don't know, you think I am wrong.

The word know has many definitions in the dictionary, one of which is "to have sexual intercourse with".

That kind of puts a whole new perspective on what might be meant if you are told by someone to "know yourself".

Dictionary definitions no doubt come about from the way words are commonly used. The fact that many religious people use the word in a way to give the appearance that they possess knowledge of something which is actually not known is I suspect the root of some definitions.

Oh no, this is the evolution thread, no abortion. Do you have any thoughts on evolution?

Let me rephrase that question. Couldn't that be the case in all definitions then?

It is a literary masterpiece. But, lest anyone wishes to revere it because it was "good enough for St. Paul," or some such nonsense, we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes! Further, there are over 300 words in the King James that no longer mean what they meant in 1611.

neologist wrote:

Questioner wrote:

neologist wrote:

No class has a monopoly on straw men.

Which strawman are you referring to that needs removing?

Terry listed a bunch here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1600027#1600027

You say that Terry listed a bunch of strawmen, but Terry responded here. You have yet to demonstrate that that which you quote from Terry are strawmen. Merely calling something a strawman doesn't make it a strawman, ne.

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

The Big Bang carries far more validity, since it has been arrived at by centuries of physics, as opposed to the Biblical story of creation, which is merely stated in an ancient text written by our pre-scientific ancestors.

The two aren't even comparable. I remind you that you have little knowledge of or competency with physical cosmology, or even its basic underpinnings, so be careful in criticizing something that you truly do not understand. You do know, however, that physics generally is developed using the scientific method, which has worked well enough to result in PCs and the Internet, not to mention human civilization.

Hi Brandon,

When I asked you if the matter/energy that were involved in the Big Bang had themselves been created or were eternally pre-existent, you did not offer a definitive answer, but allowed how scientists were still studying the matter to come to a conclusion.
I guess if we just continually give that answer to all questions of science, then by your criteria the scientific argument could never be subject to criticism because the comeback would be that we can't criticize it if it isn't fully understood.

Pretty neat. Just be vague and tentative and thus avoid criticism. Kind of the 'agnostic view of science' isn't it? Clever, but unacceptable.

Even with two degrees in physics, cosmology is a little over my head. I don't know precisely what they believe, although I have a general feeling for what sorts of things they say about it, having heard some of it. I know that it's very sophisticated and involves the creation of time itself, the number of dimensions in the universe, and involves regions of spacetime where Euclidean geometry doesn't apply. I know enough about the topic to know that the what they know now is a heck of a lot more than nothing. I believe that they are presently engaged in activiely discussing which of rival models comes closest to fitting observation.

What I have said on this topic is that even when some very complex things are not yet totally worked out by science and reason, or even if it should turn out ultimately that it is too difficult for man to understand, that would hardly be a reason to turn to a model determined by superstition. If you are so enamored of superstition over science, use superstition to make your next post on the forum instead of your PC.

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

The Big Bang carries far more validity, since it has been arrived at by centuries of physics, as opposed to the Biblical story of creation, which is merely stated in an ancient text written by our pre-scientific ancestors.

The two aren't even comparable. I remind you that you have little knowledge of or competency with physical cosmology, or even its basic underpinnings, so be careful in criticizing something that you truly do not understand. You do know, however, that physics generally is developed using the scientific method, which has worked well enough to result in PCs and the Internet, not to mention human civilization.

Hi Brandon,

When I asked you if the matter/energy that were involved in the Big Bang had themselves been created or were eternally pre-existent, you did not offer a definitive answer, but allowed how scientists were still studying the matter to come to a conclusion.
I guess if we just continually give that answer to all questions of science, then by your criteria the scientific argument could never be subject to criticism because the comeback would be that we can't criticize it if it isn't fully understood.

Pretty neat. Just be vague and tentative and thus avoid criticism. Kind of the 'agnostic view of science' isn't it? Clever, but unacceptable.

Even with two degrees in physics, cosmology is a little over my head. I don't know precisely what they believe, although I have a general feeling for what sorts of things they say about it, having heard some of it. I know that it's very sophisticated and involves the creation of time itself, the number of dimensions in the universe, and involves regions of spacetime where Euclidean geometry doesn't apply. I know enough about the topic to know that the what they know now is a heck of a lot more than nothing. I believe that they are presently engaged in activiely discussing which of rival models comes closest to fitting observation.

What I have said on this topic is that even when some very complex things are not yet totally worked out by science and reason, or even if it should turn out ultimately that it is too difficult for man to understand, that would hardly be a reason to turn to a model determined by superstition. If you are so enamored of superstition over science, use superstition to make your next post on the forum instead of your PC.

Hi Brandon,

Lacking evidence of what was before the "Big Bang", scientists have not yet determined what think may have preceded it. Not a problem. I do not fault them for this at all. You misread me if you think so.

What I have said is that once a position is taken, then whatever position is taken on this question, it will logically fall into one of two categories:

a) Matter/energy at some point had a beginning. They did not exist at some juncture and did exist thereafter, i.e. they were 'created'.

b) Matter/energy at no point had a beginning. They have always existed (in some form). There is no point at which matter/energy, or their predecessors in whatever form, did not exist, i.e. they were eternally pre-existent.

You don't need a doctorate to show that this is so.