The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by moxieman99 See your post of 8 November 2011, at 6:27PM, page 241 of this thread.

Number of pages changes based on profile settings. With maximum posts/page setting, thread will have 73 pages. I'd recommend to use post number instead.

Time, and sometimes possibly date, can also change based on time zone. I'm surprised people still haven't got a grip on time zones, there must be more pressing matters, like calling people liars, to attend to .

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Time, and sometimes possibly date, can also change based on time zone. I'm surprised people still haven't got a grip on time zones, there must be more pressing matters, like calling people liars, to attend to .

I believe that time and date stamps are based on some version of GMT. I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 I believe that time and date stamps are based on some version of GMT. I could be wrong.

Times/dates are converted to timezone you set in your profile. I.e. if you change your timezone, all displayed times for all posts in all forums will change accordingly, and they will be different for people in different timezones. So it'll be easier to use post number instead.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 I believe that time and date stamps are based on some version of GMT. I could be wrong.

What you believe and what is reality are obviously 2 separate things. Maybe you should get into the real world occasionally and stop calling people liars.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD At first, there is no way to "believe" in evolution, since evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. One believes in religions, not facts.

No matter how many times a thing is tested you still have to believe it to trust it. If you ever sit down in a chair without testing its sturdiness first it's because you've tested many chairs and most of the time they'll support you. So you usually trust chairs. My point is that whether it's science, history, critical reading or the things of life, you have to rely on faith quite often.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=62": Angling for evolutionary answers: The work of David O. Conover Human activity has certainly affected our physical environment - but it is also changing the course of evolution.

When you see this you probably think, "this might be a pretty intelligent article." The fact is, it assumes evolution--a chair that I see is certainly going to collapse.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

I've read the first FAQ and the author's answer, which resolution is typical. It provides an instance where evolution appears possible. Yet it does not deductively demonstrate that "speciation" occurs in nature. A new breed being discovered in a location that happens to be near a site where speciation of a similar breed almost occured, does not translate to evolution. "Suddenly, [ . . .] two new species [ . . .] appeared near Pullman, Washington," might strengthen your faith in evolution, in your mind supporting that, "The evolutionary process had created a separate species." But as is typical, it's not conclusive. And if there were more scientists who were true Christians, this sort of argument would be demolished at every turn. When there are Christians who are also scientists they succeed in what they can address by themselves.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Evolution deals neither with the origin of the cosmos nor the origin of life. It deals with how life evolved (therefore Evolution) after it came into existence.

Evolution assumes eternal matter, that matter preceded life. Therefore, it addresses origins.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD To say it in simple words: If I want to discuss math I first have to learn about math. If I want to discuss architecture I first have to learn about architecture. If I want to discuss medicine I first have to learn about medicine. That is the way people go if they want to have a serious discussion. You still have not learned anything about evolution, so why do you try to discuss it and why should we take that seriously?

I'll give that I'm probably not as educated as you--in the theories of evolution--or as most of the people who are atheist or agnostic, or even who profess Christianity denying the validity of the Bible. I have studied science some, and I believe I've studied enough, not to be finished with it, but to understand the beauty and intelligence behind the creation. Evolution to science is like rap to jazz, or like Beavis and Butthead to classic Warner Brothers. Do I need to keep listening to rap to understand its fruitlessness? Should I devote my time to Beavis & Butthead? Sorry if this offends you, but that's the way I see it.

Originally Posted by bluegospel And if there were more scientists who were true Christians, this sort of argument would be demolished at every turn. When there are Christians who are also scientists they succeed in what they can address by themselves.

Since when does the religion of the researcher change the scientific way of work? If the religion changes the result of research then the result is obviously useless, because it can't be objective. One of the points of science is to be as objective as possible.

Evolution assumes eternal matter, that matter preceded life. Therefore, it addresses origins.

Plain wrong. Evolution says nothing about matter, what was before life came into existence and how it came into existence, no matter how often you see this false claims in the creationist videos on Youtube or in the books of Ray Comfort. This statement simply shows that you don't even know the basics of the theory of evolution, worse, you do not know what the whole theory is all about instead of simply not knowing how it works.

I'll give that I'm probably not as educated as you--in the theories of evolution--or as most of the people who are atheist or agnostic, or even who profess Christianity denying the validity of the Bible. I have studied science some, and I believe I've studied enough, not to be finished with it, but to understand the beauty and intelligence behind the creation. Evolution to science is like rap to jazz, or like Beavis and Butthead to classic Warner Brothers. Do I need to keep listening to rap to understand its fruitlessness? Should I devote my time to Beavis & Butthead? Sorry if this offends you, but that's the way I see it.

So actually your answer is a simple: "I don't believe what is written there, therefore it is wrong. Also, I deny to study the Theory of Evolution, but can nonetheless say that it must be wrong."

Now you have really shown your face, you are simply a troll without a clue. A serious discussion will not take place on any topic with your behavior. Up to my ignore list, I will not waste more time on you. Have a nice life.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Since when does the religion of the researcher change the scientific way of work? If the religion changes the result of research then the result is obviously useless, because it can't be objective. One of the points of science is to be as objective as possible.

That may be the goal, but I think it fails miserably. Evolutionist are as subjective as Christians because it's impossible to arrive at any conclusion completely objectively.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Evolution says nothing about matter.

Show me an evolutionist who rejects the validity of the Bible who does not also assume that matter precedes life.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So actually your answer is a simple: "I don't believe what is written there, therefore it is wrong. Also, I deny to study the Theory of Evolution, but can nonetheless say that it must be wrong."

Rather, "I see it as a false notion, not warranting your time or mine. As such I would like to discuss evolution with you in a way not unlike programming, your being more "educated" than me.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Now you have really shown your face, you are simply a troll without a clue. A serious discussion will not take place on any topic with your behavior. Up to my ignore list, I will not waste more time on you. Have a nice life.

Very unfortunate.

Keep in mind, I'm not the one burning these bridges.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 What you believe and what is reality are obviously 2 separate things. Maybe you should get into the real world occasionally and stop calling people liars.

You will note that I very specifically state what my beliefs are and don't ascribe them to reality, leaving open the possiblity that I am wrong. I certainly don't allege that my beliefs are fact, and that they are "the only truth."

Thus no need for me to shuck and jive and backfill when I write something.

Threin lies the difference between me and Bluegospel.

Originally Posted by bluegospel That may be the goal, but I think it fails miserably. Evolutionist are as subjective as Christians because it's impossible to arrive at any conclusion completely objectively.

Which is precisely why the scientific method demands testability and falsifiability. The subjective biases of the scientists will be weeded out as assumptions are questioned and tested.

Religious faith, however, does not allow such testing, hence it is a personal matter. Problem comes when the religious demand that others kowtow to their "truth."

Originally Posted by moxieman99 You will note that I very specifically state what my beliefs are and don't ascribe them to reality, leaving open the possiblity that I am wrong. I certainly don't allege that my beliefs are fact, and that they are "the only truth." Thus no need for me to shuck and jive and backfill when I write something. Threin lies the difference between me and Bluegospel.

It's also the difference between a confident faith, of conviction, and otherwise, not that otherwise is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by bluegospel That may be the goal, but I think it fails miserably. Evolutionist are as subjective as Christians because it's impossible to arrive at any conclusion completely objectively.

Attacking your opponent does not make your position valid. Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If you want to "prove religion", attacking the theory of evolution won't help you - you still have "problem of evil" to deal with, and this problem has highest priority compared to everything else.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Attacking your opponent does not make your position valid. Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If you want to "prove religion", attacking the theory of evolution won't help you - you still have "problem of evil" to deal with, and this problem has highest priority compared to everything else.

Okay, SigTerm, what is the specific question regarding the "problem of evil," which I've not yet addressed? Please be concise if possible.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Attacking your opponent does not make your position valid.

Do I hear the sounds of hypocrisy? YES