neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 08:30 pm
It all started with me. Now I'll be blamed for it.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 12:15 am
Hey Neo, when it comes to evolution, how come you don't:
- leap in with both feet
- get all cranked up and dogmatic
- refute well established science
- spurn logic and reason
- etc.

like some of our other religious denizens of the deep dark murky waters of Christian theology (who shall remain nameless like your god)?

Just lucky? Them lighting bolts trigger a zesty primordial soup you're too busy imbibing?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 12:38 am
Amidst the rhetorical refuse posted by many, there have been some outstandingly erudite posts in this thread. Frankly, I am not able to dance to the music being played.

However, I believe everything we know of came about by established scientific laws or principles - natural law, if you so choose to call it, or a mechanism we are not yet able to articulate.

So, my participation must, of necessity, be limited to standing on the sidelines.

Do I believe God to be the author of the laws governing our existence? Yes.

Can I prove it definitively? No.

Can I make strong arguments? Obviously, or I wouldn't believe.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 01:40 am
How can "everything we know" have come "about by established scientific laws or principles" when those self same "established scientific laws or principles" are in essence the product of accumulation of evidence firstly? IOW using evolution as an example, evidence before justification of theory, not the other way around.

I have yet to see anyone make strong arguments for "God to be the author of the laws governing our existence", they always fall back on faith only.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 03:23 am
Neo wrote:
Quote:
Amidst the rhetorical refuse posted by many, there have been some outstandingly erudite posts in this thread. Frankly, I am not able to dance to the music being played.

However, I believe everything we know of came about by established scientific laws or principles - natural law, if you so choose to call it, or a mechanism we are not yet able to articulate.

So, my participation must, of necessity, be limited to standing on the sidelines.

Do I believe God to be the author of the laws governing our existence? Yes.

Can I prove it definitively? No.

Can I make strong arguments? Obviously, or I wouldn't believe.

You would make a great politician neo Razz
Just a couple of questions, though..
How old do you think the earth is?
Do you think evolution happens, or doesn't happen?
And finally, would you humor me and make a 'strong argument' for 'god' being 'the author of the laws governing our existence'? (never seen one, would be novel)

...ok so that was more than 'a couple'
Sue me.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 03:36 am
This has a familiar ring to it. As in three ring circus!

But where are the clowns
There ought to be clowns
Quick send in the clowns
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 05:47 am
Weve gotta breathe some new l;ife into tis thread or itll never make it to 10000.
"Cumulative Selection", discuss with examples.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 09:25 am
A completely lucid post on the part of Neo, which expresses his position with clarity, and explains in a reasonable manner why he hasn't dipped his oar in. There is absolutely no reason to quibble with his post.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 09:31 am
God = makes laws
God's existence = can't prove.

Nice logic.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 09:36 am
Buy a vowell, CI, he didn't say that his inability to prove the existence of god is his evidence that god makes the laws of the universe--so that wasn't his logic. You might back off and consider before you get nasty with people just because they believe differently than you do. Many religious loonies here earn every nasty remark they get--Neo ain't one of 'em.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 09:46 am
Hey, Set, I post with the speed of lightning, but with the grey matter rather not so dependable.

As for neo, I agree he's one of the good guys on a2k, and don't hold any negative feelings against him - similar to all my siblings that hold similar religious beliefs.

The thin line between one's religious beliefs and their inability to support the most basic of logical thinking is the frustration for me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 10:04 am
Me too, Boss, we all know i'm not gentle with the lunatic fringe of the god squad.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:21 am
You can't expect them to interupt their bliss, CI, for some pesky new scientific finding that points dead-on to evulution.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:26 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
timber, Your childhood crime reminded me when our younger son got caught stealing candy at a grocery store in Naperville when he was about six years old. The manager had our son and another boy kept in his office while he called us to tell us about the crime, but he was a wise man that wanted to scare the bejeesus out of them by saying he was going to call the police if they were ever caught again. The manager said it was good they got caught when young, because they will learn the lesson not to steal again. To make a long story short, since our son is now 39 years old, he has been honest about not taking money even when its laying around the house. I've been thankful to that manager ever since.


CI

I can't believe you sometimes... Smile

You condone a store manager scaring the "bejeesus" (as you put it) out of a sibling but then you seem to have strong reservations when the Bible appears to use God to scare the "bejeesus" out of you...

I find this quite contradictory.

Do you really think that people can be motivated by fear?

If you attribute fear reinforcement to your son's honesty then I will have to totally rethink my whole philosophy on life...

(a side note)

I remember in college when I took jazz dance we had several teachers to choose from. Each teacher had a different discipline.

Usually the Russian (communist) teachers were very strict so if you fell off the balancing beam you paid dearly in criticism.

Where the western teachers were more positively encouraging.

It was a communist idea, that greatness could only be achieved through suffering and trembling FEAR...

I am of the school that confidence motivation is MUCH greater in the positive then fear can ever be in the negative...

I guess this is maybe why I see a different "God" in the Bible than you do CI...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:31 am
I suspect, Rex, you've inadvertently stumbled upon the explanation for the preeminence of Eastern Europeans and the Chinese in the sport of gymnastics.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:33 am
Giving up an afterlife and/or going to Hell is a bit more scary than having the police called for shoplifting. The fact that you immediately equated Russian dance teachers to communism is an example of how your mind works. Or were you taking dance leasons in a Russian school?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:35 am
timberlandko wrote:
I suspect, Rex, you've inadvertently stumbled upon the explanation for the preeminence of Eastern Europeans and the Chinese in the sport of gymnastics.


The implications go far beyond gymnastics...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:38 am
May I take it you did not excell in the art of dance?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:39 am
Rex is a rumor in his own mind.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 11:39 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Giving up an afterlife and/or going to Hell is a bit more scary than having the police called for shoplifting. The fact that you immediately equated Russian dance teachers to communism is an example of how your mind works. Or were you taking dance leasons in a Russian school?


To assume CI's son's honesty is because of some isolated incident where his child was terrified by a stranger and not because he was positively reinforced by role models in a slower more gradual process is rather nieve and contradictory...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 468
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 02:36:20