Posted on 12/29/2011 1:01:09 PM PST by daletoons
Atheist militant Richard Dawkins has produced a children's book entitled "The Magic of Reality" and in doing so has joined the Millstone Swim and Dive Club. Spreading his venom for God to kids under the guise of Scientism is about as putrid as it gets. Children using simple God-given logic conclude the existence of a creator. It requires an abandonment of logic to attain self omniscience and declare there is no God. The materialist's faith in the escape hatch of "there just wasn't enough evidence for me" won't wash on judgement day. Here's a book idea: The ghost of Christopher Hitchens, Jacob Marley style, appears to Richard Dawkins and sets him straight. Dickey would probably make a hash of it, too bad Hitchens isn't still around to write it.
Why would that be such a startling "yarn" to you, Muridae? If God is about making a physical creation, why wouldn't He use the "physical materials" that He specially created for that purpose? I.e., "physical materials" here symbolized as "dirt," or "the dust of the ground?"
Even that very reduced and concrete term, "dirt," manifests from ideas of space, time, matter, and law — all divinely created.
Meaning no disrespect, even a cursory browsing reveals an example that fits your description: mating in S. cerevisiae, or baker’s yeast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast_mating
Sexual reproduction and the diploid genome are related, and have quite a bit of research backing the evolutionary model.
>It seems that the biggest defenders of evolution are also the biggest defenders our nation’s atheistic, compulsory-attendance, compulsory-funded, socialist K-12 school system.
I wonder why that is?
Fallacy: red herring.
>Fundamentally, if it weren’t about indoctrinating the next generation of voters in our nation’s socialist K-12 schools and our colleges and universities, all this controversy would evaporate like dew on grass on a hot summer’s day.
Ironically true; if poor parents weren’t indoctrinating their children with misguided, pseudoscientific beliefs about creation, evolution be accepted by everyone. As it is presently by the scientific consensus. It’s that whole evidence thing that really does it.
>The only people who would give a twit about evolution would be the handful of people actually working in this very **narrow** area of science. The study of evolution has little impact on the work of nearly any other scientist, engineer, or productive worker in *any** area of honest endeavor in the entire world.
Quite to the contrary: as a Christian once put it, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Evolution is a major unifying theory within biology, which links together agriculture, medicine, zoology, and essentially everything else, in addition to other fields, including biochemistry, computer science, and anthropology.
The study of evolution is massively important for all of biology - and it’s why flu shots are updated yearly.
Excuse me here, but evolution is backed by a veritable mountain of evidence, and it has been challenged over and over again since its inception around a hundred and fifty years ago, and has emerged undefeated - stronger even - each time.
Indeed, there is a reason that the scientific consensus holds evolution to be true.
As evolution is accurate, it is our responsibility to make sure that our children are properly informed about it.
As a note, I expect that teaching children to think and consider will indeed have political effects, but I’m having trouble finding a downside.
Similarly, teaching them blatant falsehoods - as creationism is wont to do - will have an obvious detriment to them.
Thank you for asking. I must say, the women on this forum are... nicer than the men. I'll stop with that.
Here's what I believe:
This life is all you get. Be good. Be careful. Be honest. Save your money. Look around. Find your sphere. Stake a claim. Create a safe place for whomever you can. Be good to your family and pets. Try not to scar the young. Avoid credit cards. Take care of yourself and don't force others to do it for you. Look both ways (and up) before crossing the street. Especially in Beverly Hills. Use sunscreen. Learn from your mistakes. Learn from other people's mistakes. Try not to hurt anyone. Don't let them hurt you either. There was a time you did not exist. That time will come again. Between those two times, do this: Be good. Be careful. Take care of your family and pets. Don't litter. Save money....
You get the idea. Life is simple, really. You don't need all this Celestine Prophecy Secret Code Eye of the Needle stuff... unless you bore easily. I was an only child, so I don't bore as easily as some folk.
Muridae
Since Dec 30, 2011
Yeah.
If your first sign-in is today, what are the odds that--just by coincidence--your first post is to try to help a beleaguered atheist right here on this thread, with no other introduction of any kind?
Is that kitty chow, or ozone, that I smell?
Cheers!
Then you question the morality of Muslims. Good to hear it! Welcome to FR!
That didn’t take long. One against seven or so is okay odds for some of these folk. Two against seven or so? Time to call the mods.
What I find amazing is how closely the Genesis account conforms to what we do know to be true from science. It is unlike other primitive creation stories that have turtles and other animals carrying the sun on its back, etc.
As for the dirt part, What **does** Genesis say? Try reading it.
Now,,,,Could your **great** mind write as concise and accurate explanation to a primitive people explaining the creation of the universe, earth, the appearance of the various forms of life upon it and man? How would **you** explain it in a manner ( for a primitive people) that did NOT seem magical? Huh?
Here's another project.
Explain the NASA trip to the moon in 500 or 600 hundred words for a primitive people who likely hadn't even seen a wheel yet. Try it. See how well you do. My bet is that your story ( understandable by a primitive people) would sound grandly magical as well.
So...This is what Genesis1;27 says:
” 27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
( no mention of dirt or any details as to how it was done. )
As for the second creation story, ...Ok bright light, how would **YOU** explain to a primitive people who knew **nothing** of chemistry, atoms, or elements that man is **indeed** made of the common elements of the earth? Let's see if **YOU** could do better. You're so smart, being a professional government teacher and all that.
Genesis 2: 7
“Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
So....From this we know that living and breathing man is composed of the common elements of the earth.
Before mocking Genesis, perhaps you should should try writing a creation story (understandable by a primitive people) that has more clarity, or more beautifully composed.
Welcome to FR.
Happy FR birthday.
Huh. You cut off the second half of the verse.
John's vision of the apocalypse (Revelation) would qualify as "seeing the Kingdom of God" as it was a vision.
2.) If me not believing in it has no effect, you shouldn't waste so much time arguing with me.
You're the one who holds it to have no effect. Ever hear of the Great Commission? Christians are called by their faith to tell non-believers.
My life is unbelievably pure in terms of the typical sins of mankind. I'm one of these weird, reclusive, monklike characters whose only vice is a little alcohol and ... dang, that's it. Seriously. I don't have television, I don't gamble, do drugs, screw around, take bribes, diserespect my parents.... I don't need any guidance in how to live a frugal, careful, balanced life. Life itself taught me that. I'm pushing 50, you know?
You are still fallen short of God: He does not grade on the curve.
The only thing Christianity would require me to give up is the freedom to use my brain exactly as I see fit. That's the "outcome" I don't like and won't put up with.
Yeah, it's usually sex or intellectual pride (snerk) which leads people to reject Christianity. Given your tangles with calling men "women-haters" or similar on another thread, I kinda sorta figured you were in the second camp.
What's moral about suspending disbelief in any respect? This is a serious question... why is that "moral"? Because I really don't get it.
It's not mere intellectual assent to a set of propositions; it is a restoration of a sundered relationship with God.
The problem is, your time is no longer strictly your own: you may be called to do all *kinds* of uncomfortable things, even without reward or seeming progress.
4)I tell you what I'm thinking because you are one of the few people on this thread who remains polite.
You'd have got more politeness if you didn't apparently cut-and-paste boilerplate bullsh*t which contradicted itself, and which you apparently hadn't thought through all the way yourself, and then hold your nose in your air as intellectually superior.
Cheers!
98 - “Unlike Christianity, where Jesus told his followers that he would return in their lifetime. He didn’t...” Now, some have seen these to be a mistake by Jesus—that He honestly believed that He would return before the death of all His disciples. The verses are Luke 9.27, Mark 9.1, and Mt 16.28:
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” (Lk)
And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” (Mark)
28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew)
- but the data is decidedly against this understanding of His words. http://christianthinktank.com/qaim.html
Huh. You cut off the second half of the verse.
John's vision of the apocalypse (Revelation) would qualify as "seeing the Kingdom of God" as it was a vision.
2.) If me not believing in it has no effect, you shouldn't waste so much time arguing with me.
You're the one who holds it to have no effect. Ever hear of the Great Commission? Christians are called by their faith to tell non-believers.
My life is unbelievably pure in terms of the typical sins of mankind. I'm one of these weird, reclusive, monklike characters whose only vice is a little alcohol and ... dang, that's it. Seriously. I don't have television, I don't gamble, do drugs, screw around, take bribes, diserespect my parents.... I don't need any guidance in how to live a frugal, careful, balanced life. Life itself taught me that. I'm pushing 50, you know?
You are still fallen short of God: He does not grade on the curve.
The only thing Christianity would require me to give up is the freedom to use my brain exactly as I see fit. That's the "outcome" I don't like and won't put up with.
Yeah, it's usually sex or intellectual pride (snerk) which leads people to reject Christianity. Given your tangles with calling men "women-haters" or similar on another thread, I kinda sorta figured you were in the second camp.
What's moral about suspending disbelief in any respect? This is a serious question... why is that "moral"? Because I really don't get it.
It's not mere intellectual assent to a set of propositions; it is a restoration of a sundered relationship with God.
The problem is, your time is no longer strictly your own: you may be called to do all *kinds* of uncomfortable things, even without reward or seeming progress.
4)I tell you what I'm thinking because you are one of the few people on this thread who remains polite.
You mentioned coming to God through Mohammed a little bit ago.
If you were arguing like this with Mooselimbs, you'd likely have been raped or killed, rather than ridiculed or ...*shudder*...not intellectually respected.
Count your blessings for the Freedoms remaining from when this was a Christian-consensus culture.
Cheers!
89 - “but the fact is, most of the prophecies do not fit Jesus. He wasn’t called Emmanuel.” -
People and groups in the OT were OFTEN getting special ‘place’ names and temporary names, to be used for a specific purpose. Solomon, for example, got TWO names at his birth (II Sam 12.25)—Solomon and Jedidiah. No reference is ever made to Jedidiah after that, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue. See also the story about Pashur in Jer 20:1-6.
Israel and Judah consistently receive ‘temporary’ and symbolic names in the Prophets (cf. Ezek 23 and Is 62.3-4)
Matthew is the one who quotes the ‘Immanuel’ passage one verse AFTER the he reports the angel’s command to name the son JESUS, AND four verses BEFORE reporting that his parents called him ‘Jesus’...he doesn’t show the SLIGHTEST concern over this “problem”! (in other words, it WASN’T an issue in that culture). This is even more striking in that Matthew is the one arguing that the passage was fulfilled! —the name issue wasn’t an issue.
If you had to call the kid ‘Immanuel” for the prophecy to be fulfilled, what in the world are we gonna do with Is 9.6—where the child gets 4 names (i.e. wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace)?!
And actually, we don’t think it was his mother who had to call him ‘Immanuel’ anyway. Most modern bibles have a footnote at the ‘she shall call him...’ text, that explains that in the MSS, we have a couple of variants (he, she, they)...Matthew quotes it as ‘they’...This could apply to ANYBODY who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people—even John 1 would qualify for this.
This is just not generally considered a problem:
“There is no problem in referring the names Jesus and Emmanuel to the same person. This may well be the reason Matthew spells out the meaning of the name Emmanuel, meqÆ hJmw`n oJ qeov”, “God with us” (LXX Isa 8:8, 10). Indeed this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform. Bringing the presence of God to man, he brings the promised salvation—which, as Matthew has already explained, is also the meaning of the name Jesus (v 21b). “They” who will call him Emmanuel are those who understand and accept the work he has come to do. Matthew probably intends the words of Jesus at the end of his Gospel—“Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age” (28:20)—to correspond to the meaning of Emmanuel. Jesus is God, among his people to accomplish their salvation
Gerrymandering. Make the data fit. Like Global Warming advocates. Start with your stance and work backwards. He wasn’t called Emmanuel because he wasn’t come to save Israel. Therefore he doesn’t fit OT prophecy.
Science is not a matter of consensus; that is politics. Science requires facts, which in the case of evolution, are utterly absent.
Evolution is refuted by a universe of evidence.
Evolution survives in the minds of fools and deliberate deceivers.
I'll have to order more liver.
Cheers!
It's clear that Jesus really thought the End Is Come. But it wasn't. Because... he was just another deluded narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
What is this “our” business? Is this like the “Royal We”?
**YOU** have a responsibility toward **your** children **only**. You and others have absolutely no right to force your educational philosophy on any other parent's child or to force others to pay for it!
Macro-evolution has little to no impact on the lives, work, or study of anyone except for the handful of people actually working in the very **narrow** field. of macro-evolution. In the overall world of science few scientists pay any attention to macro-evolution whatsoever!
My husband is a Ph.D. biochemist. That means the chemistry of the body. I have a doctorate in a health specialty. We spent about 20 minutes on the topic of macro-evolution on the undergraduate level. On the doctoral level NO NO NO NO ( that means **Zero**) time was given at any time to the subject. So? tell me how important could it be if the leading researchers and professors in our fields gave it **ZERO** attention? Huh?
If macro-evolution is soooooooo unimportant that the leading researchers and professors in the field of biochemistry and health professions give **ZERO** attention to it in training up fellow scientists and health professionals, then it certainly isn't important enough for you or anyone else to resort to government threat of police action to force it on **other** people's children or to force **others** to pay for your ( Oh so!) anointed educational philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.