Posted on 06/20/2007 9:05:55 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Oh, you mean the origin of life. I was talking about evolution - that’s two different issues.
Come on! It can’t evolve if it doesn’t start. What started all this evolving.
If I can see it, kick it, spit on it, measure it, fold-spindle-or-mutilate it, if it is verified by a secondary source that meets the same criteria, if it is observable in both it’s properties and it’s behavior, then it’s evidence.
By the same criteria, do you have a Brain? A Soul? Constitutional Rights?
“Do you believe Troy was a real city?”
Yes. The evidence, historical, literary and archelogical is umistakable; a city existed, it fits the general parameters of the city of Troy as described by Homer (amongst others). It may not have been ever called “Troy” but it has come down to us as “Troy” through time and it exists by all the virtues I listed above.
Until 1871 when Heinrich Schliemann discovered the ruins, "they" considered Troy a myth, yet a man who had faith in the validity of Homer's story...
“Do you believe Jesus lived, died, and ressurected?”
I believe that a man who’s name has come down to us a Jesus of Nazareth once existed, that he was executed and then he disappears from history (apparently dead). I do not believe in the ressurection (12 years of Catholic school will do that to you), I do not believe that Jesus claimed divine lineage, and the historical and archelogical evidence available suggests that he was a revolutionary (whether politcal or religious, or both, is open to debate), not a deity.
If one dismisses the resurrection, then one must explain away the circumstantial evidence of the growth of the Christ-followers in the very city where he was murdered, the matyrdom of those who were in a postion to know the resurrection was a lie, and the documentary evidence of the book of Luke, which was written as evidence for Roman court concerning the defence of Paul.
“Do you believe in Anacrtica?”
Yes, I’ve seen it. Have you?
Nope. I have faith that the evidence (literary, video docmentary, etc) is valid. Even having seen it, however, proves only that I saw something I believed was Antarctica. The rabbit hole goes deep, if you think of the implications of what we have actually proved to ourselves.
“Do you believe you exist?”
For all either of us know, we could be conversing with a computer program, not another human being. If you think about it, we are. :-)
>>Oh, you mean the origin of life. I was talking about evolution - that’s two different issues.
I don’t know. And no reputable scientist would claim they know.
I believe it was God but even then I don’t know whether life was created here or elsewhere and brought here.
In any case, modern evolutionary theory does not address where the first life came from but only how it grew and progressed once it got here.
In any case, modern evolutionary theory does not address where the first life came from but only how it grew and progressed once it got here.
They call it spontaneous generation I believe, and it is put forth along with evolution as a scientific possibility but like evolution the theory part of it always gets lost and it is presented as fact.
You don't know much about Sir Issac, do you?
Excellent! Because my issue is not with Christian philosophy (the universal brotherhood of man, the corresponding system of rights and responsbilities inherent in such a belief, etc,), my issue is with Christian MYTHOLOGY and the cynical uses to which it has been put over the centuries. Not to mention the hypocritical system of belief that has been constructed to justify that cynicism.
my issue is with Christian MYTHOLOGY
Why just Christian. If it is a myth it seems to creep up in all other religions but you seem to want to single out Christianity. Why?
“If one dismisses the resurrection, then one must explain away the circumstantial evidence of the growth of the Christ-followers in the very city where he was murdered, the matyrdom of those who were in a postion to know the resurrection was a lie, and the documentary evidence of the book of Luke, which was written as evidence for Roman court concerning the defence of Paul.”
Explain then, if you will, how millions of Germans, steeped in the Christian tradition found it so easy to dump those traditions and plunge the world into a murderous war that claimed the lives of millions? If the appeal of Christianity was so great, and it’s tenets and mythology established, absolute fact, then no one should have strayed from the path, should they have?
What’s missing in your formulation is context. Millions flocked to Christianity in the same way that millions would later flock to Communism, National Socialism and the Pet Rock; they all seemed to answer to a personal need and offer a vision of society and existance that appeared infinitely better than the one people experienced at that moment in time.
That Christian belief has endured is not all that unusual: other faiths, far older than Christianity, have also endured. Mankind will always need something to believe in.
Again, my issue is not with the philosophy but with the system of illogical nonsense which has been erected to prop it up.
So you’re saying that Creationism can be proved while Christianity can’t.
No! I’m saying none of it can be proved.
There are a number of respected scientific web sites explaining evolution and the evidence behind it
By respected webb site I suppose they are respected because they support your contention.
fossil evidence
I know of no fossil supporting evolution that could not just as well support other theories
artificial selection and breeding experiments,
Every living organism shares some DNA with every other living thing this does not mean one is evolving into the other. Find an example where one species became another. i,e. Two cats mated and produced a dog.
The terrorists who flew into the WTC, OTOH, believed what they could not prove, but attempted to prove it through their actions. This proved nothing, other than their willingness to murder in the name of their 'god'. The disciples died for a belief, you suppose, that they KNEW was a Big Fat LIE!!! If you choose to believe that , OK by me.
Scientific evidence is a prediction of a scientific theory that has been observed. A prediction is a logical deduction of the theory. That is, it is the conclusion of a logical argument from the axioms that comprise the theory. Usually contingent information must be added to formulate the argument so, strictly speaking, the prediction is evidence of the theory plus the contingent information. That's why we hope lots of independent lines of evidence so that the potential falsity of the contingent arguments is of less concern.
I hope that clears it up for you.
I like to think God is fond of software reuse.
Bump
There is nothing in the least surprising that Newton was religious; nor that some historic religious figures strongly encouraged scientific pursuits.
On the other hand, note how the same Socialists who have sought to curb religious observance and belief, have distorted the sciences that relate to the nature of man, in their promotion of such insane goals as World Government, and immigration policies which deliberately undermine the prevailing culture in Western lands. (No! Kennedy, Bush, Lindsey Graham and company are not atheists! But they have bought, 'hook, line and sinker,' the sham socialist science, which treats all peoples as basically interchangeable--creatures of their social environment, which the Communists, Social Democrats and Nazis, all believed they could manipulate to actually change the breed--in other words, recreate man in a new Socialist image.)
William Flax
‘Why’ is not an Aristotlean category question. It is a figment of our syntax that asserts free will and purpose, which makes the question both improper (in its propriety) and incorrect.
Reckon why Evolution built into man the need to believe in something greater than himself? I sure the answer can easily be explained away, but the Scripture says that "God has set eternity in the hearts of men".
Explain then, if you will, how millions of Germans, steeped in the Christian tradition found it so easy to dump those traditions and plunge the world into a murderous war that claimed the lives of millions?
We all like sheep have gone astray, everyone has turnbed to his own way. The Israelites, pre-David, post-Moses, routinely abandoned the God who brought them out of Egypt. So if you really want to know why "christians" (in name, not in regeneration via new birth) commit heinous acts, look no further than the unregenerate, sinful heart of man.
The theory of evolution says man evolved from a common precursor to apes, not monkeys.
I think science when explaining man is bogas! Science denounces God’s infinite power and His divine nature. Science says we are from monkeys and not made from dust. I rather be dust than some upgraded monkey. Which is why I DETEST Natural Law because we as Man are fallen and in need of a savior, not a savior through science. It was written the Lord can do all things. He can create time, bend time, break time, and destroy time, and stop time. Science should solute God’s Power and Perfection.
I think you have an issue understanding the definition of the scientific method. If science just repeats what X random religion says without empirical evidence then it is the same as that X random religion and is no longer science as defined. Empirical observations are not dependent on your religious views unless your religion says that your opinion shapes the world. Science doesn't denounce any divine nature or any particular deity. It simply cannot observe it. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence nor does a non affirmation statement mean affirmation of nonexistence.
Did you miss this part of the article:
It may end later," Newton writes, "but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophecies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."
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.