Evolution? How?

Well, the fact that they fear his wrath somewhat suggests that there is no question for some people wether there is even a god or not. What I'm trying to say is that there are probably two types of fear, and they can't come from the same person; one is either afraid of the "dark" or afraid of his wrath.

If someone simply believes there is a god because they are scared of the alternative, then it's doubtful that they will sincerely fear his wrath.

Since neither the creation of man nor the evolution of man has been observed and both are postulated to have been events of the distant past, are they scientifically provable?

Again no, because they are not repeatable or testable events.

For myself, I have never been afraid of God. Not once that I can ever remember.

We have tried and tried and tried to explain to C.I. and others what fear of God means to us. He continually points out people should use the dictionary. Well, I suggest in this case, he use it. Just because fear has a different definition to him than it does me or others, does not make ours or his wrong. In my case, his is wrong. I do not fear God.

Also, we have pointed out in the Old Testament there was Moasic Law and in the New Testament there was and is the law of Christ. He does not seem to want to accept that. I am sorry he doesn't. If he is afraid of God, he has no need to be. God loves him. He just doesn't love God.

So, if he is so big on the dictionary and choice and all that, I would suggest that he let everyone have the choice of which definition in the dictionary describes what they mean and not force his definition onto anyone else. Believe me, we get it.[/b][/color]

Momma Angel wrote:

For myself, I have never been afraid of God. Not once that I can ever remember.

We have tried and tried and tried to explain to C.I. and others what fear of God means to us. He continually points out people should use the dictionary. Well, I suggest in this case, he use it. Just because fear has a different definition to him than it does me or others, does not make ours or his wrong. In my case, his is wrong. I do not fear God.

What you apparently fail to comprehend MA, is that YOU do not represent all of Christianity. The fear of God, and I mean fear in the 'Dear God, he's in the attic with a knife' way, is very much a part of the recruitment process of many congregations around the world.

I realize that I am not representative of all of Christianity or anything else for that matter. Just speaking of myself in this situation. And C.I. is part of the conversation. So, just dealing with what's on here.

Quote:

Also, we have pointed out in the Old Testament there was Moasic Law and in the New Testament there was and is the law of Christ. He does not seem to want to accept that. I am sorry he doesn't. If he is afraid of God, he has no need to be. God loves him. He just doesn't love God.

Might not wish to accept it because we're sometimes told to ignore the OT, and other times expected to accept it. While some of us understand what that means, it's confusing as hell to those that don't.

Well, pertaining to the conversation on A2K, we have tried to explain this. It's not accepted. I don't understand ALL of it either. I'd just like to address some different things instead of the same verses over and over and over again. Have to agree to disagree I guess.

Quote:

So, if he is so big on the dictionary and choice and all that, I would suggest that he let everyone have the choice of which definition in the dictionary describes what they mean and not force his definition onto anyone else. Believe me, we get it.[/b][/color]

I rather think neither of you get it, which is the reason this keeps coming up.

I do get it. That's just it! I do get it. His fear of God is obviously different than my fear of God. Cool. So? I can agree to that and let it go. C.I. seems to just keep bringing it up and I will address it as long as he does. No harm, no foul.

rosborne979 wrote:

]What you seem to believe has no evidence to support it, and to make matters worse, you're not even asking for more data to analyze..........

seems to be rooted in your desire to continue to ignore the fact that both positions rely on inferences and interpretation of evidence.

Both positions have the same evidence. The physical world, the cosmos, living organisms, etc. "belong" to neither the evolutionist nor the creationist.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

]What you seem to believe has no evidence to support it, and to make matters worse, you're not even asking for more data to analyze..........

seems to be rooted in your desire to continue to ignore the fact that both positions rely on inferences and interpretation of evidence.

Both positions have the same evidence. The physical world, the cosmos, living organisms, etc. "belong" to neither the evolutionist nor the creationist.

You have made this argument before, and I consider it irrational. Your contention with this argument is that evidence can support whatever interpretation anyone wants because interpretations can be molded to explain the evidence. While there is some level of truth to this contention.....................

real life wrote:

Since neither the creation of man nor the evolution of man has been observed and both are postulated to have been events of the distant past, are they scientifically provable?

Again no, because they are not repeatable or testable events.

Yes, they are scientifically "provable". And you're right, we've been over this before. You continue to make the mistake of using the word "proof" differently than it is used in science. Since we've been over this before I'll leave it up to you to do your research and understand why you continue to make this mistake.

Also, you continue to misunderstand what aspects of a scientific theory need to be repeatable and testable. Many theories are considered scientifically provable, even though they can not be repeated.

Best Regards,

In the real world however, we find the evidence far more compelling that a Redwood Tree grew from a seed, rather than getting poofed into existence when we weren't looking.

The guy/gal real life in really unreal. "Are you saying both creation and evolution are scientifically provable?"

A one track mind is hard to dislodge.

This ground was covered a zillion times on a2k - with you as a participant.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

]What you seem to believe has no evidence to support it, and to make matters worse, you're not even asking for more data to analyze..........

seems to be rooted in your desire to continue to ignore the fact that both positions rely on inferences and interpretation of evidence.

Both positions have the same evidence. The physical world, the cosmos, living organisms, etc. "belong" to neither the evolutionist nor the creationist.

You have made this argument before, and I consider it irrational. Your contention with this argument is that evidence can support whatever interpretation anyone wants because interpretations can be molded to explain the evidence. While there is some level of truth to this contention.....................

(emphasis mine)

When you make up your mind which direction you want to argue this, let me know.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Since neither the creation of man nor the evolution of man has been observed and both are postulated to have been events of the distant past, are they scientifically provable?

Again no, because they are not repeatable or testable events.

Yes, they are scientifically "provable". And you're right, we've been over this before. You continue to make the mistake of using the word "proof" differently than it is used in science. Since we've been over this before I'll leave it up to you to do your research and understand why you continue to make this mistake.

Also, you continue to misunderstand what aspects of a scientific theory need to be repeatable and testable. Many theories are considered scientifically provable, even though they can not be repeated.

Best Regards,

Are you saying both creation and evolution are scientifically provable?

What would prove creation to you scientifically?

rosborne979 wrote:

In the real world however, we find the evidence far more compelling that a Redwood Tree grew from a seed, rather than getting poofed into existence when we weren't looking.

You believe that life poofed itself into existence, don't you?