193 Responses to “Polk County to include Intelligent Design”

Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 » Show All

1. 161 Anonymous Mar 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm

   Well okay, i just typed a wonnderfully eloquent few paragraphs here and didn’t fill out my email, so it disappeared, now i’ll restart from scratch but it won’t be as good. God Damn it.

   Mr. Miami said “evolutions [sic] intended message is that there is no God”. I would like to point out that this is a presumtuous statement to say the least. First and foremost Evolution is not your roommate Matt, the Atheist. As such it can not be personified in such a way as to INTEND any messages. Evolution is a field of study, it will never intentionally say “there is no God” nor will it ever intentionally say “I had sex on your bed, don’t use your pillow” or “Sorry, i spilled beer on you keyboard”

   The very first proponents of intelligent design were Geneticists and evoluntionary scientists seeking an explanation for why DNA and life in general are so complex. Seeking explanations for why we, as intelligent beings, have such a difficult time reproducing life in a laboratory, not to mention why it hasn’t randomly been produced on the planet on a regular basis.

   The very concept of intelligent design as a valid scientific plausibility hinges on the idea that evolution as a result of genetic variation and adaptation is in fact proven. If you do not accept evolution as fact, ID has no valid talking points, and therefor, no scientific justification.

   This is what strikes me as frustrating; the people who often are proponents of Intelligent Design are also often attempting to kill Evolutionary education, yet, Inelligent Design is BASED on the science of evolution. The very foundation of ID is evolution. If you’ll forgive my poor analogy, these people are trying to build a house on sand.

   That said I would like to again point out that Evolution does not make any claims that there being no God. Many proponents of evolution make that claim, but evolution itself is simpky a field of scientific study, and as such it explores and attempts to understand the natural universe which FSM created. Science does not exclude the existence of a creator, even while many scientists may.

   Suck It.

2. 162 MrMiami Mar 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 am

   @Shawn Pate
   .
   Your move? LOL. I have an interesting piece on how to have an intellectual conversation. Perhaps you should review it. I am not sure what you mean by I overlooked your post? You’ll need to explain what you feel I overlooked.
   .
   Is your Bon Fire symbolic of the lake of fire or the test of faith in the Bible? Those occur outside the natural

   realm. Worldly science does not apply during the condemnation of man or the judgement of one’s strength of faith.
   .
   In the natural realm, the science that the Judeo/Christian God created applies. Of course, fire burns and destroys. In fact, the Judeo/Christian God says that he will destroy all of creation in the end by fire. I would not want to be Left Behind. During the endtimes scenario there is direct intervention by God in this world and people are said to withstand the effects of natural fire.
   .
   Biblical meaning of faith and your meaning of faith are not the same. The Biblical meaning of faith is ‘to place trust

   in’. The modern meaning of faith and your meaning of faith is to believe in something without cause. They are very

   different. Christian’s view all of creation as a result of a participating God. His ‘fingerprints’ are all over

   creation. Learning about the Judeo/Christian God is like preening. He enjoys being discovered and wrestling with

   humans. One way to discover his existence is to reconcile creation with his message from beyond this universe.
   .
   There are really only three points of trust. 1. God is who he says he is. 2. The Bible is his infallible message. 3.

   Jesus Christ is who he said he is. All else falls into place using history, science, philosophy, archeology, etc… to reconcile what is alleged in the Bible.
   .
   The problem is that you confound science with cosmology, theology, and philosophy. Science only deals with complexity

   and order. Origin has nothing to do with science. ‘The origin of a Species’ is not science but attempts to use a

   version of science to justify origin concerns it propagates. Science should never be different based of some idea. It

   should be rock solid. But the ’science of evolution’ is not rock solid and makes some fundamental assumptions that are

   not correct. For example there are assumptions that are not true,
   .
   1. Randomness is a naturalistic phenomenon
   2. Evolutionary life is solely biological and does not need to account for spirit
   3. Naturalistic information does not need to be addressed
   4. Durable & repeatable evolutionary phenomenon can be observed only once
   5. Spirited Biological life can be sparked into existence from inert materials
   .
   Evolution is frequently buried in obfuscation; It is so slow no one can see it; It so complicated that it is difficult

   to understand; There is no cause and effect predictability its just random; etc…
   .
   Wow this sounds like science - not!

3. 163 Shawn Pate Mar 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am

   MrMiami,
   _
   I would like to address your first post before the second.
   _
   YOU SAID: How a God who created the universe NOT be part of the science that he created?
   —- EXACTLY! Your god offers no explanations for scientific theory but you insert your god into the equation based on information accessed from science. Don’t confuse vague remarks of the prophets to conclude to a result after science has discovered it. You call this creation theory… but you have no theory without proof. You call your proof faith; there is no theory of faith.
   _
   Second Post***********************
   _
   Your move… simply means that you are accusing Science of not being able to prove things… but we can. It’s your inability to review these truths… yes, I said truths. The bonfire was not a symbol of any biblical tale; just as I would have not referenced George Luca’s “Star Wars” as an example of the difference between sciences in faith.
   _
   You need to remember something MrMiami, it is not WE who have to prove anything to you. We have the proof, we have the timelines, we have the history, we have the culture, and we have the FACTS. In the end, it is YOU who came here to preach to us. But I have not seen anything worth thinking about. You have a book that contains no truths that can be verified in any way. The difference between science and religion is that science builds up facts to create a hypothesis to reach a conclusion. Your religious organizations find a conclusion, and then look for the “evidence” to back it up.
   _
   _
   Let’s address your supposed scientific errors and let me explain them to you.
   _
   1. Randomness is a naturalistic phenomenon
   —- Science talks about mutations, this is TRUE! Just because science can not tell you where, when, and why a species mutates, does not mean it does not happen. We assume this will happen because it will. Just like you assume that if you jump in fire that you will be burned.
   -
   2. Evolutionary life is solely biological and does not need to account for spirit
   —- Science has found nothing to believe that there is a “spirit”. Please give us some type of scientific proof, and I assure you… the scientific community will arrange for the change. But since you can not give proof, please assume that science will not account for this. The same way your religious organizations do not change the bible to reflect evolution. The main difference is that when science finds proof it will change the views of almost everybody in the community. The bible is infallible and if an error is found then the fundamental idea of truth is evolved into something more ambiguous. The community say “I’m sorry… we made a “TRANLATION” mistake… what it really means is… (insert religious board to make something completely unclear… thus irrefutable). “…that depends on what the meaning of is… is”. - Clinton
   _
   3. Naturalistic information does not need to be addressed
   —- Anything that does not have truths (proof) behind it to enforce a law… will not be addressed. This is science. Take it or leave it, science (one again) is based on provable laws. Religion bases itself on the assumption that people will believe anything they are told. —- harsh… but very true.
   _
   4. Durable & repeatable evolutionary phenomenon can be observed only once
   —- How can something repeatable occur only once? You may want to reword this.
   _
   5. Spirited Biological life can be sparked into existence from inert materials
   —-Once again, give me proof of a spirit and we can talk.
   _
   Darwin is not the PROOF of evolution. Darwin simply started the scientific movement. The 150 years of scientific labor is what makes up the “theory of evolution”. Darwin died a very long time ago.
   _
   One thing you are saying is that Science is too big for you to wrap your head around, therefore you find it hard to understand and even more difficult to find truths that dispute ID. Science says that mutation is random but it is a fact that it exists and happens. I’m sure you believe in lightning… science can tell you where lighting will happen, but not when. This does not mean that the Meteorology was created by god and therefore too hard to understand. It’s simply random. Maybe this would help you understand.
   _
   You have still failed to give me any proof on the existence of any ID proposed god. This is the only question I am really interested in getting answered. All the other stuff is just an attempt to help you answer your questions. I love to discuss religion. Your interesting because it seems your IQ is somewhere above 120. I don’t understand how anybody who is intelligent cannot see the obvious flaws in religion regarding dogma and how religion has been used throughout history as a tool for political control.
   _
   Asking you to prove the existance of god is a loaded question. Please explain to me then why YOU believe that there is a god somewhere that created the universe. After that, please explain the following:

   1.) Why does god need to be praised?
   2.) Does Jesus Christ need to be your personal savior in order to get into heaven?
   3.) Why does god need man to carry out killing others in his name.
   4.) Why does god need man to enforce rules?
   5.) Why does god need man?
   6.) Why did an omnipotent god change the rules?
   _
   I have many, many more questions… but these will do the job just fine for now.
   _
   I’m not a sharp person by nature… I’m pretty open-minded and love an educated discussion. There does, however, need to be some sort of truth to the story. Please don’t talk in circles like the others… give me a reason to think. Please take into account that I have logical discussion with ID purveyors on a daily basis and I am just sick of people that use faith as a reason to believe. I don’t care if others use faith to believe themselves… but if you want to make me see the light… I need proof.

4. 164 mnky9800n Mar 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

   I really don’t understand why they are allowed to make this decision at all. Someone needs to define what the first amendment means when it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Doesn’t this mean that we aren’t allowed to have anything to do with religion in a public (i.e. government owned) facility? In fact, why does someone open each day of congress with a prayer? Isn’t that right on the line? I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe but when our children are subjected to those beliefs someone needs to step in and have a word with them. State mandated religious teachings is what many of our founding fathers, and their ancestors, were trying to get away from when moving to America. Why are we trying to bring those things back? Furthermore, can anyone produce any scientific evidence that supports intelligent design? I’ve seen a lot of Bible verses that support it but when was the last time the Bible was held up as a scientific standard?

5. 165 MrMiami Mar 6th, 2008 at 2:21 am

   @Shawn Pate:
   .
   In your post, you made reference to several disciplines and approaches; science, theology, and religion. Science deals with complexity and order and establishes test for certainty. Theology is the rational and systematic study of a deity and on the nature of human reality. Religion is the practice of a theological doctrine.
   .
   Obviously, you have assumed an ‘us against them’ posture. In short, you have chosen sides. Perhaps you should think about the side you have chosen. Being on the losing side is not a good idea. I have seen this before, either you are for us or against us; Romans 8:31.
   .
   I find your remark ‘We do not have anything to ‘prove’ curious. You have all this ‘proof’ to ‘prove’ something. So in truth you do have something to prove and it sure sounds like you are preaching to me. Your worldview is one that you emerged from inert materials that underwent a Frankenstein animation processes eons ago. You are nothing more than a bunch of biological and natural processes that become worn out and return to dust from whence you came.
   .
   Randomness does not exist. That is the point behind Chaos Science. This science, that you obviously lack skill in, states that the vast majority of the universe is ordered and indeterminate. James Gleick wrote about
   this in his Book, ‘Chaos, Making a New Science’. The entire Evolution argument is built on the notion that the naturalistic phenomenon of ‘random’ action acts through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation and adaptation resulting in transpecies speciation. When the science of chaos states it is impossible for randomness to exist. It is almost laughable at your lack of technical skill and understanding. You obviously put faith in Evolution and its contrived evidence.
   .
   Accounting for the spirit is not difficult. Look at your spirited response. It is just an empirical observation I made. Where did your anger, despise, and aggressiveness come from? There seems to be a science to psychology. How effective is the science of psychology at explaining your conduct and resolving your life issues? There are attempts under Evolution made to explain consciousness with the quantum brain. Your conscience is nothing more than the collapse of an unstable protein tubule that forms a stream of consciousness. That does not explain much about you and your morale conduct. You must agree that morale conduct exists as you possess a sense of right and wrong. Please explain this to me. What is the science of this? There are books on the science of Good and Evil.
   .
   Naturalistic information does exists. For one it is found in your DNA. Your DNA has information stored in it and has information acting on it. Where did this come from? Evolution states that DNA is a blueprint for life and there is information found in a blueprint. Information science indicates that a bit has heat content and that information and thermodynamics are one and the same. Once again you have demonstrated a lack of scientific understanding. I am getting the sense that you really do not know what you are talking about.
   .
   Science rigor states that naturalistic principles withstand the test of time and consistently operate anywhere in the universe. However, only one evolutionary thread line is running building the current tree of life which is not in line with evolution. If all life came from a primordial globule then why is the microbe kingdom apart from the plant and animal kingdoms in the tree of life. It seems to me that the microbe branch should be above the rest of the tree. Why are there not other thread lines running randomly? Additionally, why have soup kitchen efforts to spark the building blocks of life always produced the proteins and amino acids in an environment hostile to carbon based life? I don’t see the ‘proof’ that carbon based life sparked into existence. Please provide this scientific proof or is this another point of faith in your evolutionary cosmological model?
   .
   I just watched a several specials on Darwin. Everyone of the specials focused on Darwin’s rejection of faith and daring alternative to faith. There was nothing in the realm of science (complexity and order) discussed? Instead he took walks and listened to his wife. That makes everyone married a genius. This sent the signal to me that Darwin was not looking at science but for a cosmological alternative. He even called his revelation “The Origin of a Species”.
   .
   I’ll address your God questions after you address your lack of scientific understanding. I need to see your proof of evolution first. Also please explain the innumerable hoaxes perpetrated to manufacture evidence in support of Evolution.
   .
   After you have addressed these points I’ll address the doctrinal issues of the Judeo/Christian faith.

6. 166 MrMiami Mar 6th, 2008 at 3:11 am

   @ mnky9800n
   .
   Q1: Someone needs to define what the first amendment means when it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
   .
   A1: The US forefathers studied morale and ethical systems when designing the United States Government. They agreed among themselves that the system most friendliest to governance was the Judeo/Christian Bible.
   .
   “The Christian Religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind” Thomas Jefferson March 23, 1801.
   .
   “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissolvable bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity”, John Quincy Adams
   .
   The US Bill Of Rights was ratified by Congress in 1791 but not without a hot debate by the forefathers. George Mason, an Episcopalian, strongly influenced by the Bill of Rights amendments. They built the US Bill of Rights directly from the 10 commandments. The first four commandments are God’s rights that include his right to his people and self-definition. Therefore, governments cannot interfere with God’s rights as they are sub-servant to God. Thomas Jefferson Declared, ” …To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
   .
   Furthermore, there are two Supreme court rulings that are in contradiction. The 1892 ruling “The United States vs The Trinity Church” in which there is an opinion written that the United States is a Christian Nation and these are a religious people. The justice provided a 400 year history of veritable evidence for his opinion. The later ruling of “Everson v. Board of Education” in 1947 which is separation of Church and State was based on a single letter between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist. You’ll need to decide which has the greater credibility.
   .
   In short, the Forefathers original intent was not to force God upon men as God does not force himself upon men. So who are men to try? They were convinced that the Christian religion was the ideal framework for governance.
   .
   Q2: Can anyone produce any scientific evidence that supports intelligent design? I’ve seen a lot of Bible verses that support it but when was the last time the Bible was held up as a scientific standard?
   .
   A2: The Bible is not a science but science can be used to validate and authenticate the Bible. This takes not only an understanding of the Bible but also an understanding of Science. It can be a quite lengthy study. Unfortunately, there is not a stable model for Intelligent Design as both Secular and Christian influences are at work on it. I’ll demonstrate in another post how the process is conducted.

7. 167 MrMiami Mar 6th, 2008 at 5:03 am

   @ mnky9800n
   .
   In the Judeo/Christian doctrine the view is that God created the universe and the science within the universe. The doctrine further expresses that God is active participant in the universe. It is a self-truth he professes and is only understood by believers. In fact, all Gods profess self-truths and these self-truths are only important to those in the community of faith.
   .
   There is a way for someone outside the community of faith to use science to reconcile what any God says and attempt to validate truth in what that God remarks. That is to conduct a scientific experiment or investigation into the order behind a complex object that is discovered. Once the scientific investigation is concluded and the order is understood then take what is now known and reconcile with a God’s remarks that are in his scriptural text and as doctrinally understood. If there is a match or congruence that has contextual relevance then you have made another discovery.
   .
   For example, Quantum Physics has discovered particles can be smashed in a particle accelerator to a point that matter becomes quantized or discrete. This occurs in the Planckian Realm. At that next instance when these discrete chucks of matter are to be smashed one last time they instead disappear entirely. In fact, matter ceases to exist. What remains are waveforms, light waves. Particle physics then models the light waves and calls them strings which vibrate harmonically. Hence, string theory emerges which can be dimensionalized up to four dimensions; X, Y, Z and time coordinates. It is thought that these strings (light waves) come together in a process, yet to be explored, called ‘compactness’ to form a particle again. Hence, we arrive at the wave-particle theory of light. This activity in the Planckian is not random but instead probabilistic outcomes. In the end, discovery in quantum physics tells human beings that the fundamental state of the physical universe is based on light that comes together to form matter even though we do not have a complete understanding of the processes involved.
   .
   Then one of these Christian scholars comes along and understands this discovery in Quantum Physics and rubs his brow. He then opens up the Bible and reads in Genesis 1:3, “God said, ‘let there be light and there was light.’” God began building the universe in the form of light. In this scholar’s mind there is a corroboration between scientific discovery and something that was mysteriously written nearly 4000 years ago before particle accelerators were on the planet. This scholar then thinks that is interesting but needs something more. So he turns to Herbrews 11:3 where is reads that the universe was made at God’s command and of things not visible. He then realizes that not all light is in the visible spectrum and that these particles that form from light are only 10 to the minus 35th meter in size. Wow, in this scholar’s mind that is a second corroboration made by science of something written long before this scientific discovery was possible.
   .
   This is a basic example of how scientific discovery corroborates what was written in the Bible. I only skimmed the surface lightly. The same kind of validation and authentication occurs using other sciences such as Archeology, crytpology, and information sciences. The studies become very in depth relating science and mathematics to the Bible. Over time evidence and corroboration begin to mount and it statistically becomes an impossibility that the the Bible is not what it says it is. One truly needs an in depth understanding of mathematics and science to really dig into these topics I have breezed through. One has to be willing to study the Bible too. A high school, vocational school, community college, or Sunday school education does not buy one much insight.
   .
   It takes personal effort and willingness to learn. Leonardo Da Vinci was a master at this using his Da Vincian principles such as a willingness to embrace the impossible or to throw everything up in smoke in order to look at things from a different perspective. Einstein would use image streaming and combinatory play in his minds eye. If you are to learn anything real you’ll need to act like one of the greats.

8. 168 paul mahoney Mar 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am

   Just considering that both ideas of creation of the world go back in time, one a lot more so then the other, they both are out-side the realm of science and that they both require faith of some type to believe. However, science can help point us in one direction or another by observable and testable happenings.
   The fact that organisms that fall significantly short of how they naturally are supposed to be due to mutations or other imparments means they will soon die off seems to support that you have to have an amazingly excellent design to beginn with, other wise the organism dies out before it can pass on much if anything, according to the natural selection theory. This would seem to point more towards a Creator who got it right the first time and anything that strays to far from the original recipe fails at continueing it’s legacy. Organisms, according to the highly revered natuaral selection theory, don’t have the forgiveness of nature to get enough of a chance to fail and try again, fail and try again. If an organism fails in the bid for survival of it’s kind, it goes extinct and that’s that.
   I know some people say adaptations are a sign of evolution, a short-term version of macro-evolution that should just be accepted as fact. Even with adaptaion, there are already the things needed present to make it work. A rabbit developes longer ears and shorter fur in a hot enviroment rather than a shorter earred, longer furred rabbit in a colder enviroment is still a rabbit. I’ve heard that people who don’t get enough to eat will grow longer than usual body hair in a relatively short time in the bodies attemt to stay warm. That’s an amazing thing that doesn’t prove evolution, it proves the amazing capabilities our bodies come pre-made with and that points towards a creative designer who knew what we would need.
   Entropy, the breaking down and dis-order of things left to themselves, is a scientific fact that is a big argument against evolution. They rely almost entirely on the belief that if something, which has to somehow be there in the first place, is given enough time to itself and conditions that ware away at it, which is what causes entropy, some how creates and makes things falty somehow work.
   Just looking at natural selection, the organisms that best exemplify a model of the thing best suited to live in a certain place are the ones that survive and carry on. They best exemplify the best model for a function in an enviroment. They continue a design, not create new ones!

9. 169 MrMiami Mar 9th, 2008 at 3:51 am

   @paul mahoney:
   .
   I agree that Evolution and Intelligent Design are both outside the realm of science. The schools need to do several things. First, they need to hire competent teachers and get away from the porn star and leftist guerilla teachers that seem to be the norm today. The leftist guerilla teachers put up political posters in the classroom and somehow use math to teach leftist ideologies. The porn star teachers have the porn star tattoos often located on the ankle, back of the neck, belly, or the small of the back to brand themselves ensuring payment for services. It seems they are getting it on with the students too. Competent teachers, on the otherhand, are educated in their subject matter which is not a teaching degree and are able to present multiple viewpoints without bias. Second, The cirriculum needs to split science apart from philosophy, cosmology, and theology. At a minimum, two course should be taught; science and a philosophy, cosmology, and theology comparative course.
   .
   The comparative course should not be like my Democracy class in high school which turned out to be a course on why one party was always right and the other party was always wrong. That turned out to be one of the most difficult courses for my teachers who ever taught me. Why is planned parent hood only in poor minority neighborhoods if it is so good everyone? Why is the the economy consistently down whenever the balance of power in government is to one side? These were the type questions I was hitting my teachers with and they often sent me out of the class. Great teaching skills? The comparative course should present all sides without a bias. It should include respresentatives from each side teaching and evaluating thier piece of the coursework.
   .
   The inability of the school boards to develop meaningful non-bias education gives rises to why people are home schooling and the voucher system. The immature response of the public schools and the teacher associations is to fight these and lobby for legislation to prevent it. This could give grounds for a wide spread uprising and underground schools that unteach and reteach the young. This has happened before. During the Cold War in Soviet States old Christian women taught in thier homes both religion and general education despite the Soviet Governments efforts to undermine Christianity and reteach the sciences, history, etc… that was inline with their political doctrines. The Soviet government lost that battle.
   .
   I agree that mutation and adaption are known scientific phenomenon. However, that does not mean that they cause transpecies mutations over time. The breeding of dogs has not created a new species but instead created a lot of variation in that species. The evolutionists are so stressed to make thier belief seem valid that they call mutation and adaption horizontal evolution. Vertical evolution refers to transpecies mutation. The Evolutionist then obfuscate the issue by dropping horizontal and just say Evolution confusing the known with the unknown in order to make thier strange point. I would characterize this as an information warfare tactic and psyops on the Evolutionist part. If they had a valid argument this would not be necessary.
   .
   In the end, our schools need to rethink their teaching cirriculum and the materials they are teaching if they desire to preserve truth and knowledge. There needs to be some sort of certainty of knowledge index that is a ‘audit’ of the creditability of knowledge. This is possible but the brainpower in American society is dimming. I think the bulb has become a faint glow. How does one attain better precision than the best precision he has? There is an answer to that as we have done it once.
   .
   I agree the design, not evolution, is a ongoing process.

10. 170 cina murtad Mar 20th, 2008 at 2:29 am

    based on id theory, who designed the designer?

11. 171 Simon Mar 21st, 2008 at 3:59 am

    Dear Mr Miami…

    What makes your Christian God superior to any other God?

    Religion is blindsided by its own obsession with stamping is authority on all aspects of life.

    Science moves with evidence. If scientific evidence proved your God’s existence, you would then accept all scientific tennets.

    And for that matter, I would believe in God as a scientific priniciple.

    Until then, the most logical system is that of evolution and adaption of species in the survival of the fittest.

    Peace out

    Si

12. 172 bonzo Mar 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Me, I’m not a Christian, I’m Jewish. And I really, really wish that you idiot gentiles would stop trying to interpret my book. You guys stink at it.

13. 173 Jason Mar 25th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Hmm… I guess the only part about ID I don’t get is, why would a Creator create a world and encourage life and also create a world that hides all marks of and ID?

    I guess using the bible as a guide, with the comparison of Quantum Mechanics and the third verse of the bible is as useful as useful as comparing the death of Henry II with Century 1, Quatrain 35 of Nostradamus. In hindsight you can infer any hidden meaning.

    I am just curious as to what ID predicts? The theory of Evolution makes observations, and predictions. ID only observation.

    You seem to know your stuff MrMiami, I am hoping that you could help me with these little hurtles.

14. 174 Cinna Mar 25th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    As a theologian who specializes in Biblical translation, I can tell you that the scholarly evidence compiled thus far does nothing to provide evidence for the “truth” of claims within the “scripture”, whether it is the Hebrew Scriptures or the “New Testament”. In fact, historical and archeological evidence contradict the claims of authorship made within the Bible, and translational errors persist and are the foundation of major Christian doctrines being propogated today. In the end, there is no “proof” or solid factual basis for faith. Consqeuntly, if one has faith in the creation of the world by a deity, the truth of that creation lies only within the mind and emotions of the believer.

    All the same, having a dual degree in biology, I can say that there are plenty of issues with the supposedly proven theory of evolution. To assume that anything in science is actually proven is just bad science! There is nothing in science that can ever be considered to be a finality. The theory of evolution has issues, but at the moment, it’s the best one that we have. That doesn’t mean it’s true any more than any other religion’s creation story is true.

    As for “separation of church and state”, to be really nerdy, I will tell you guys that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were the originators of the concept, did not actually intend for religion to be excluded from the public arena. Their intent was to ensure that people could publicly practice whatever religion they wanted, and to make sure that the government didn’t exclude Deists, Jews and minority Christian groups from political office.

    Due to the modern presence of so many various religions, it is absolutely ridiculous for these people in Florida to think it’s practical to give fair voice to religious views in a public school. If they are going to teach “Intelligent Design”, which is blantantly Christian creationism, then they should give fair voice to the other religious creation stories as well. I’m sure that they aren’t remotely willing to do that. Perhaps Christian parents should take the responsibility for child-rearing seriously, as their Bible suggests they should, and teach them about creation at home.

15. 175 gooie Apr 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am

    My belief in god depends on the definition of “god”. If god is merely something that made us, then I dont have a problem with the existence of a “god”. Something caused the universe to exist. If the world is the product of “chance”, then I can call “chance” my maker, or god. I have a problem with how people picture god and expect god to behave in a certain way, or treating “god” like a being that can feel, see and hear. So if god was defined as an all-powerful, all-good creator, then i dont belive in a god.

    I fail to understand this argument. Evolution doesnt disprove (or prove) god. Its just a way life has developed. God could have caused evolution. Its could be his intelligent design that the fittest survive. Saying that god made us is more an answer to the question:”who made us?” than “how did we come aboutt?”

    The theory of evolution has holes in it, but its still a pretty good guess at how we came about, compared to just popping into existence at gods will.

16. 176 MrMiami Apr 15th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    @cina murtad
    .
    In intelligent Design the designer is acknowledged by both Christian’s and secularist. The Secularists such as Physicists Paul Davis acknowledge that the evidence for design is overwhelming and attribute the design to ‘a designer’. The Christians reconcile the evidence of design found in science with the scriptures claiming that the identity of the designer is the Judeo/Christian God. So the Chrsitians just take the understanding a bit farther than the secularist who acknowledge the evidence of design. Granted not all secularists understand the design notion and many think it is simply a ‘christian’ thing.
    .
    @Simon
    .
    I think you made a very Christian point here. You are really arrogant and prideful to think that a God is a possession of a human. If I had a God, he is not mine. I would be his. I think that is the point of a God.
    .
    @Bonzo
    .
    There are a lot of Christians tired of the Jewish not getting the message.
    .
    @Jason
    .
    You asked, “Why would a Creator create a world and encourage life and also create a world that hides all marks of and ID?”
    .
    In the Christian worldview, God does not hide but insteads enjoys the thrill of discovery. Creation is ordered in a way to allow humans to find the ‘easter eggs’. He designed in the character of men and women different kinds of curiosity. Men are designed to ‘wild at heart’ and become adventurous, explorers, scientist, engineers, etc… and women were designed to be adventurous in other ways. God’s fingerprints are said to be all over creation. There are entire works on this topic.
    .
    ID does not predict anything. ID is a school of rational thought that houses numerous theories. In ID, God is often called the watchmaker. Evolution is one theory under an umbrella of theories known as the Blind Watchmaker Theories. The difference between the two is not only is there a God or not but the science is different bwtween the two.
    .
    @Cinna
    .
    I disagree. In fact, review of the Theologians who worked on the Dead Seascrolls would disagree with you too.
    .
    @Googie
    .
    Evolution is counter to the science the Designer put in place. Evolution relies on a couple of axioms that are untrue. First, true randomness does not exist in this universe at all. There is no mathematical formula, the language of science, that can model it. Probability cannot be random because it is a limited set of outcomes with recurring patterns that are characterized by a mathematical formula. Second, there is no evidence of vertical or transpecies mutations. For hundreds of years dogs have been bred all kinds of ways and all we have are dogs, a lot of kinds of dogs. There has been no genetic drift, no random actions, and no adaptation causing dogs to become another species.
    .
    Science deals with complexity and order only. Thoughts of origin are not science. Hence, Darwin’s ‘Origin of a Species’ is not a science but instead an attempt to use science in order to develop a cosmological revelation that you are the result of random action. The counter view to this is that you were designed and created for a purpose. Life in this counter view is defined as an embodiment and a spirit. There is an image that was placed into your embodiment and calls out to your conscience. Life under evolution is defined as a series of biological and chemical processes. Evolution as a cosmological revelation cannot account for your self-awareness and conscience.
    .
    I highly encourage you to seek out understanding of these things in greater detail.

17. 177 DavidSSS Apr 18th, 2008 at 6:38 am

    What really gets me is that they want to teach ID as science. OK, sure, lets put ID in a science class. If it is a serious science class then ID would have to be treated as a hypothesis as there is no proof. Evolution, on the other hand, can be taught as a theory as there is proof. Why don’t they just teach ID in theology, it is a religious, or faith based, hypothesis, it belongs in religious instruction or theology, not science. ID also happens to be a reaction of the Christian Churches to evolution blowing their creation myth out of the water. It is a hypothesis tailored to trying to hold back the tide of evidence. Furthermore, it is treated as a joke everywhere but in the USA.

    The other thing is why do religious people want to convince others of their beliefs. You believe in your god and hypotheses about creation and the like, fine. But why do you have to try and convince me? I’m not running around trying to convince religious people not to believe in god, I assume it is their choice. Why can’t you leave me to my choice. What is your problem?

    DS

18. 178 MrMiami Apr 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    @DavidSSS:
    .
    You are exactly right one problem is choice. Another problem is the science.
    .
    IRT choice: You are viewing the situation through your choice lense insisting that your choice is right and want to limit other choices. For what ever reasons you made a choice and the presence of another choice challenges you to rethink your current position. Evolution is masquerading as a science. It is not a science or a theory. It is a cosmological revelation from its inception. Evolution is an alternative to other thoughts, principally Christianity. Evolution has theories and a science that are used to justify it. Evolution is challenged on its cosmological revelation and it is challenged on its science (its sense of order and complexity). You must be willing to reflect on challenges to your beliefs to either confirm them or deny them. If you cannot do that then your understanding has no substance.
    .
    IRT the science: People make up thier science to fit their strange beliefs. It is certainly the case with Global Warming and so far it is the case with evolution. The very underpinnings of evolution are not even remotely true and honest science has shown this too many times. So all the higher level arguments are senseless because the foundation has been washed out. I cringe at these high school teachers who teach crap science and listen to them espouse their strange personal views as some sort of naturalistic axiom. Folks I cannot say this enough science only deal with complexity and order vice randomness.
    .
    What needs to happen is ethics and integrity needs to return to science. Teachers need to teach on the basis of complexity and order. A humanitarian course needs to teach ideologies like Evolution, Christianity, buddism, Islam, etc… In fact, a comparative humanities course would do wonders in solving this problem. But the greatest thing we need to do is restore science to its prestine state untouched by evolution or other doctrines.
    .
    Religious people share their understanding not much different than evolutionist insist on their belief. It seems all humans need a God and part of a life’s adventure is to discover who is that God. Even atheist have a God that is a NULL. They defend a NULL with ferocity despite claiming they have nothing to defend. But attack thier defensive points, mainly evolution, and they go beserk.
    .
    In the end, humans cannot get away from “The God Issue”. It is clearly part of our make up. Some people defend God and other people deny God. This only tells me that there is something to deny and it must be God. So which side of God are you on?

19. 179 davehead Apr 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am

    how can you tell us that becuase we deny god there must be something to deny? your arguements are seriously lacking and i dont want to waste my time when all i will have thrown back is content taken from the bible which just happens to be the only unstable evidence your religion has. forget about this holy spirit for a minute and really think about where the bible has come from, who wrote it and what time of time frame it would have been made up over. think back to playing chinese whispers in school. unfortunatly delusion is wide spread in our species.

20. 180 MrMiami Apr 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    @davehead:
    .
    Stop referring to ‘my religion’ I never once stated anything about ‘my religion’. Just because I have knowledge and can argue from various positions does not reveal who I am. It only reveals that I have an understanding. It is because of my understanding that I have choosen something that is unknown to you.
    .
    I have not thrown back Bible verses. So get off your high horse!
    .
    We live in a polar universe; off or on, black or white, good or evil, male or female, left or right, up or down, hot or cold, God or no God. One cannot deny something if its alternative exists. It an old Greek philosophical argument.
    .
    In the Christian worldview, the Bible was written over 2000 years and is a anthrology of 66 books penned by 44 different scribes. The Christians believe that it was inspired by the Holy spirit (coincidentally, there is an evil spirit too) in order to maintain a consistent message. In otherwords, humans wrote it down who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and God himself authored it. There is no single source of the Bible other than God. It was assembled from principally three different document sets. Two are dated around 1000 AD were used to organize the King James Version of the Bible. The other document set was discovered later, 1947, and was written at the time of Christ by the Qumran. The 1947 document discovery corroborated the earlier document discoveries validating the King James version of the Bible as an accurate account. Coincidentally, the document set written at the time of Christ is the Dead Sea Scrolls and was discovered by a nomadic sheppard searching for his lost sheep the day the U.N. voted to form the nation of Israel, May 14th, 1947.
    .
    Christ is a lamb, church leaders are sheppards, and believers are sheep. Is it odd that a sheppard is searching for his lost sheep and finds the Dead Sea Scrolls at the same time Israel is formed as prophetized? It is a little spooky to me.
    .
    By the way, the in the Christian Worldview God’s fingerprints are all over creation. In order to see this evidence you’ll need to study what the Bible is saying and have a firm graspof science. However, you seem so repulsed by the Bible that you’ll never known what it truly says. I also doubt you’ll ever have a honest understanding of science either. So you’ll probably believe whatever Star Trek fantasizes or so nut like Micheal Schermer who follies with people who will believe just about anything.

Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 » Show All

Leave a Reply