The Faith & Religion mega Thread

"Quite honestly, Enorbet, do you seriously think that you need to correct me? Or, to somehow educate me? C'mon ... we're both "standing around the same water cooler" here, and, let's face it "none of us were born yesterday." It will, therefore, neither "advance your arguments" nor, particularly, "do you any good," to characterize me ... or, anyone ... in the manner that you have done in the two most-recent posts. Nevertheless, I have not taken any offense, so let's move on.

Everyone(!) obviously wants to know "everything" ... one way (Religion) or another (Science) ... and, guess what, neither party will arrive.

Still, I find myself "amused" by the "scientists."

Even though, as you say, we can only experience "slightly less than five percent of" ... (how the jh-e-l-l did anyone arrive at such a certain-sounding number?!?!) ... "all that is" ... apparently someone did concoct a "theory of everything," then thought to insert the exculpatory clause, "almost," and, in so doing, apparently evaded the very-obvious (to me, anyway ...) judgment of, "preposterous!"

If you choose to believe(!) that "whales turned into mammals and back again," then I can simply ask of you one thing: that you admit(!) that you ... "believe."

... That y-o-u ...

... are expressing, here and now ...

... a ...

... belief.

(C'mon. It's okay. We're human. We believe things, when it is not possible to with-certainty "know" them.)

I don't need to "prove you right," nor to "prove you wrong," but I just can't help but notice that you probably have a great deal more in common(!) with your debate-opponents than you might care to admit . . .

Originally Posted by enorbet Given a few posters in this thread, especially the spin-doctoring, equivocating, definition twisting, phony authorities, and outright willful deception of OregonJim, I find that sheer nonsense and that while you come off as more conciliatory, are just as insular and dogmatic.

I believe you just described yourself to a tee!

In fact, believe is too weak a term.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I just can't help but notice that you probably have a great deal more in common(!) with your debate-opponents than you might care to admit . . .

EVERYONE knows that except...enorbet.

He likes to ridicule the intelligence of those who don't believe exactly as he does (and is doing NOW, again, to BOTH of us). Let him continue - it doesn't bother me one bit - in fact, it sheds much light on the driving force behind his arguments.

So, yes; you're just wrong...

So, let me clarify kiddies,,, I'm wrong by definition sometimes and will admit it!

Whereas "religions" must exploit and hide this!. (Can't get no $1 from dead grannies otherwise!)

Originally Posted by OregonJim I believe you just described yourself to a tee! In fact, believe is too weak a term.

:-)

Frustration is the dark side, step into the laser.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs "Quite honestly, Enorbet, do you seriously think that you need to correct me? Or, to somehow educate me? C'mon ... we're both "standing around the same water cooler" here, and, let's face it "none of us were born yesterday." It will, therefore, neither "advance your arguments" nor, particularly, "do you any good," to characterize me ... or, anyone ... in the manner that you have done in the two most-recent posts. Nevertheless, I have not taken any offense, so let's move on. Everyone(!) obviously wants to know "everything" ... one way (Religion) or another (Science) ... and, guess what, neither party will arrive. Still, I find myself "amused" by the "scientists." Even though, as you say, we can only experience "slightly less than five percent of" ... (how the jh-e-l-l did anyone arrive at such a certain-sounding number?!?!) ... "all that is" ... apparently someone did concoct a "theory of everything," then thought to insert the exculpatory clause, "almost," and, in so doing, apparently evaded the very-obvious (to me, anyway ...) judgment of, "preposterous!" If you choose to believe(!) that "whales turned into mammals and back again," then I can simply ask of you one thing: that you admit(!) that you ... "believe." ... That y-o-u ... ... are expressing, here and now ... ... a ... ... belief. (C'mon. It's okay. We're human. We believe things, when it is not possible to with-certainty "know" them.) I don't need to "prove you right," nor to "prove you wrong," but I just can't help but notice that you probably have a great deal more in common(!) with your debate-opponents than you might care to admit . . .

No sundialsvcs it is not OK at least for me. I suppose you have not seen the complete and numerous fossilized whale skeletons with fully functional hind legs complete with toes, nor the earlier ones with both front and hind legs. This is not Faith, this is confidence based on evidence scrutinized by thousands of professionals in archaeology, anthropology, geology, and several other high level disciplines. I respect that you may be a skilled programmer but you are not involved at these levels in these fields and apparently haven't even seen the evidence.

While it is not personal nor unique it is an intelligent and learned person's prerogative to try to correct falsehoods. If that person takes offense then perhaps my words were less than clear or I went overboard from emotion, but often I have specifically and honestly complimented you and mentioned "no offense" and yet you are apparently offended which implies sacred cows to me. There is very little in the way of conclusions that I hold so dear that it is all but above dissent. If I am wrong or likely wrong I want to know about it and fix it and no longer be wrong. That is NOT insular but the exact opposite. You however, while acting conciliatory and amenable, seem to never change no matter what data faces you in this thread and others. All around you is deep evidence for FULL Evolution, yet you find some "middle ground" that perhaps you feel fits most people well enough to make you widely "likable and friendly", while remaining an "open-minded, free thinker".

The very fact that I accept that the evidence supporting Dark Matter and Dark Energy is sufficient to question earlier thinking that seemed to wrap so much up in a neat little bow, should demonstrate that I am NOT static and open to new evidence, even when it hurts. That you don't shows you are set in your ways at best.

You believe I have much in common with Creationists, Evolution Deniers, and Young Earthers exactly because you don't have confidence in the scientific method or even really know it's tenets and rigors, hear "small voices in the night', deny major parts of Evolution, Big Bang, Standard Model, indeed the Scientific discoveries of the last 100+ years! So in this, I must just consider the bias of the source since I have objective evidence to the contrary. I discover and accept that i am mistaken many times most weeks. I just don't stay that way.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq :-)

I'm responding to you because I'd like to know what you meant, where you stand in this debate, and the smiley was not at all definitive. I can only see OregonJim's posts when they are quoted because I put him on ignore after he openly altered a quote from a scholarly paper and then tried to justify it as if he knew more than the researchers. That's pure deception and refusal to accept any manner of dissent as well as an agenda of twisting real evidence into that which would seem to support his preconceived notions. That sort of action can get one expelled from any reputable University, so I will have nothing to do with him directly.

So, where do you stand on this?

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Frustration is the dark side, step into the laser.

That's Numberwang...

https://youtu.be/zyVorF59vrc
http://www.hulu.com/watch/201413
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186597/

Originally Posted by enorbet I'm responding to you because I'd like to know what you meant, where you stand in this debate, and the smiley was not at all definitive. I can only see OregonJim's posts when they are quoted because I put him on ignore after he openly altered a quote from a scholarly paper and then tried to justify it as if he knew more than the researchers. That's pure deception and refusal to accept any manner of dissent as well as an agenda of twisting real evidence into that which would seem to support his preconceived notions. That sort of action can get one expelled from any reputable University, so I will have nothing to do with him directly. So, where do you stand on this?

I thought his response was perfectly clear.

As to the rest of your drivel, the record (dozens of pages back by now) is also abundantly clear to anyone (else!).

Deceit made you so you it...

Add; u-pun-to: http://ftp.lanet.lv/ftp/unix/securit...n-1.1.1.README

Originally Posted by OregonJim I'm talking about the cause of the first life form - the START of "evolution".

So you don't actually object to evolution then? (as far as I know, evolutionary theory is agnostic to the question of how life started)

Originally Posted by ntubski So you don't actually object to evolution then? (as far as I know, evolutionary theory is agnostic to the question of how life started)

Yes, I do. At least with most of the basic premises.