The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Hmmm... this was a duplicate post, but I see no way to delete it. Strange...

To me your points about that don't sound all too compelling, too.

I'd like to add that If I were you and living in Oregon I would surely undertake to climb Mount Hood, Mount Baker, Mount Rainier, Mount Adams, Mount St. Helens, Mount Shuksan and the likes. Must be a beautiful country.

In Germany some say: 'There's many ways to God, but one goes over the mountains'.

My favorite part is down the mountains...

Perversion is a point of view, existence is not. We can prove your hearts beat, you can never prove a soul (beyond a word. Or, do it!--Ignore here but not because () or "trolls!" )

Before going downhill comes going uphill. Unless one has a wife / friend who will give a ride uphill first

Originally Posted by alberich I'd like to add that If I were you and living in Oregon I would surely undertake to climb Mount Hood, Mount Baker, Mount Rainier, Mount Adams, Mount St. Helens, Mount Shuksan and the likes. Must be a beautiful country.

Yes, it is beautiful country. It reminds me of a paper I read not long ago. Demographic studies showed that the vast majority of atheists are urban dwellers. The author's conclusion was that atheism is not a rational viewpoint to those who see design in creation on a regular basis. Urban dwellers see mainly man's creations. I think it goes deeper than that, but it was an interesting paper nonetheless.

Originally Posted by OregonJim No, it's not reasonable. It is even less reasonable than evolution itself. Evolutionists are of the opinion that all life started by chance, as if 'chance' were some kind of causal agent. That's a perversion of the meaning of the word 'chance' by evolutionists. [...] But evolution elevates 'chance' into a mythological 'force' - a causal agent in its own right. [...] [...] evolution is simply the naturalist's religion, with its own god called 'chance'.

Here, I would agree with you. With emphasis on the phrase, "evolutionists."

Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species (a very intriguing book, but a slow read ...), was very deliberate in his selection of title. "... Species." Although he said, fairly parenthetically, that there might be "no logical contradiction" in the idea that evolution might extend beyond the realm of "species," he also never asserted that it did. (Nor could he.)

We can observe that there are biological protections against mating between different animals. There are only a few combinations that work at all ... e.g. a mule, which is viable but sterile. We also observe that animals reproduce "after their own kind." There are all kinds of apparent safeguards that we don't understand yet. For instance, "the first sperm to reach the egg," is not necessarily the one that the egg accepts! We don't know why.

To me, "evolutionists" are simply pursuing their own flavor of creation-myth. What they're saying has nothing to do with the actual, pedantic, findings of Charles Darwin. His actual treatise has no room for "mythological force." But "evolutionists," who I daresay never read the book, "evoke the holy name of Charles Darwin" in precisely that way.

Because they think that he said what they wanted to hear.

But, he didn't. (Read the book! I did!)

I think that what Darwin said was basically correct ... observably correct ... as far as he went with it. He was careful not to go farther. He speculated "farther," making it quite clear to his readers (who, of course, knew the game ...) that this was what he was now doing. But this has utterly nothing to do with "man came from monkeys" and so-on. That isn't Charles Darwin talking.

Similar, the "Big Bang" "scientist-ists." They've grabbed a notion that is even more far-fetched than the one in Genesis-1. ("Waters on the face of the deep," on a planet with no sun?) In a world where the laws of Thermodynamics say that entropy always increases, they happily refer to their "incredible explosion" as "science." It's nothing more than (to me, highly improbable) speculation.

So, yeah, I agree with your way of putting it: "... with their own God called {'chance', 'evolution'}." But they don't call it that. They call it, "by God (pardon the pun ...), fact!" When it ... very simply isn't. They stand on a scientifically-indefensible position, and call it science, because they want to.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Yes, it is beautiful country.

Curiously, I almost accepted a job in Oregon. (Good thing I didn't, though, as it turned out ...)

Still, I spent a few days at a B&B on the Oregon coast. I had never before heard "continuous surf." A rocky shelf reaches far out to sea for many miles north-and-south, so that the sound that I heard from my window was a continuous sound of the surf.

It did take a little getting used to the idea, though, that I was not allowed to "pump my own gas!"

A beautiful, beautiful, beautiful place to live. Count yourself ... blessed.

Good point, also people refering to science should try and understand what they're talking of befor making claims.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Urban dwellers see mainly man's creations.

I totally agree. I think seeing man's works even makes ill, sad and depressed.

Being in nature / creation is almost a food, revitalizing and in a way cleansing.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Here, I would agree with you. With emphasis on the phrase, "evolutionists." Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species (a very intriguing book, but a slow read ...), was very deliberate in his selection of title. "... Species." Although he said, fairly parenthetically, that there might be "no logical contradiction" in the idea that evolution might extend beyond the realm of "species," he also never asserted that it did. (Nor could he.) We can observe that there are biological protections against mating between different animals. There are only a few combinations that work at all ... e.g. a mule, which is viable but sterile. We also observe that animals reproduce "after their own kind." There are all kinds of apparent safeguards that we don't understand yet. For instance, "the first sperm to reach the egg," is not necessarily the one that the egg accepts! We don't know why. To me, "evolutionists" are simply pursuing their own flavor of creation-myth. What they're saying has nothing to do with the actual, pedantic, findings of Charles Darwin. His actual treatise has no room for "mythological force." But "evolutionists," who I daresay never read the book, "evoke the holy name of Charles Darwin" in precisely that way. Because they think that he said what they wanted to hear. But, he didn't. (Read the book! I did!) I think that what Darwin said was basically correct ... observably correct ... as far as he went with it. He was careful not to go farther. He speculated "farther," making it quite clear to his readers (who, of course, knew the game ...) that this was what he was now doing. But this has utterly nothing to do with "man came from monkeys" and so-on. That isn't Charles Darwin talking. Similar, the "Big Bang" "scientist-ists." They've grabbed a notion that is even more far-fetched than the one in Genesis-1. ("Waters on the face of the deep," on a planet with no sun?) In a world where the laws of Thermodynamics say that entropy always increases, they happily refer to their "incredible explosion" as "science." It's nothing more than (to me, highly improbable) speculation. So, yeah, I agree with your way of putting it: "... with their own God called {'chance', 'evolution'}." But they don't call it that. They call it, "by God (pardon the pun ...), fact!" When it ... very simply isn't. They stand on a scientifically-indefensible position, and call it science, because they want to.

I think this is one of those rare moments where we are in complete agreement.

Stop evolving to have families as big as cults then genii! Opinions,,, facts.

Man did not build big cities, "god" did, der...red.

It must of made this possible by grifting minds with evolution?

Unimagi

Only you can contradict yourself because it's not for you to know its plan.

Beauty in this city (unless your an imaginary devil loving (and\or people) hatter) plus country and\or grate lakes all around.

It must suck not getting to fully learn imagination, I have cousins born way up north and can see myself born anywhere or who. You?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs A beautiful, beautiful, beautiful place to live. Count yourself ... blessed.

I do.

Regards...