Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 120 (29817)
01-21-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Karl
12-09-2002 4:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
I don't face any dilemma. That's your intellectual problem, not mine.
Intellectualism has many faces.......so does ignorance. None of us is capable of championing a position on every subject known to man, although some people believe that they are experts on everything, simply by virtue of their own existance. As far as facing a "dilema", some do indeed find it more comfortable to simply turn their back on that which they either cannot, or will not, acknowledge. Personally, I openly reject the TOE because it refuses to abide by the true tenets of science, is incapable of explaining the existance of life, and requires far too much blind faith to believe in its' unsubstantiated claims. Sorry
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Karl, posted 12-09-2002 4:20 PM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 01-24-2003 8:48 AM Jet has replied
 Message 37 by edge, posted 01-25-2003 3:05 PM Jet has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 120 (30099)
01-24-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chara
12-09-2002 1:48 AM


quote:
The thing is, we don't get to judge those who don't believe by the same standards ... but they do get to judge us.
If you are talking about the passage from the Bible that goes, "Judge not, lest ye be judged.", it doesn't say anything about not being allowed to judge others.
It's OK to judge others, as long as you understand that if you do, you open yourself up to judgement, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chara, posted 12-09-2002 1:48 AM Chara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Satcomm, posted 01-24-2003 10:12 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 120 (30101)
01-24-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jet
01-21-2003 9:05 PM


quote:
Personally, I openly reject the TOE because it refuses to abide by the true tenets of science,
Please list the "true tenets of science", and please explain how the ToE violates them.
quote:
is incapable of explaining the existance of life,
Please point out where in the ToE it proposes to explain the existence of life. (I assume you mean the emergence of the first life).
As has been pointed out to you umpteen times, the ToE does not deal with how life got here. It explains what happened to life once it emerged.
Do you likewise criticize the study of aerodynamics because it does not explain where wind comes from?
quote:
and requires far too much blind faith to believe in its' unsubstantiated claims.
My acceptance of the ToE is based upon evidence. If reliable evidence came along which contradicted the ToE, I would need to change my understanding of how the world works.
Last time I checked, this is not "blind faith."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jet, posted 01-21-2003 9:05 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jet, posted 01-27-2003 3:55 PM nator has replied
 Message 58 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:57 AM nator has not replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 120 (30116)
01-24-2003 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
01-24-2003 8:36 AM


quote:
If you are talking about the passage from the Bible that goes, "Judge not, lest ye be judged.", it doesn't say anything about not being allowed to judge others.
It's OK to judge others, as long as you understand that if you do, you open yourself up to judgement, too.
Correct, Schraf.
However Jesus said more than that in Matthew 7. He also said in Matthew 7, verse 15-20, that we shall know people and false prophets by their fruits. You can detect them by the way they act, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit.
So we should not judge for condemnation (lest we be opened for condemning judgement), but we should judge for identification.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 01-24-2003 8:36 AM nator has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1824 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 120 (30182)
01-25-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jet
01-21-2003 9:05 PM


quote:
Intellectualism has many faces.......so does ignorance. None of us is capable of championing a position on every subject known to man, ...
You obviously don't know John Paul...
quote:
...although some people believe that they are experts on everything, simply by virtue of their own existance. As far as facing a "dilema", some do indeed find it more comfortable to simply turn their back on that which they either cannot, or will not, acknowledge.
True, or possibly what they cannot or will not understand...
quote:
Personally, I openly reject the TOE because it refuses to abide by the true tenets of science, ...
I have not heard the 'true' tenets of science. If you are so demanding of science, why are you not so demanding of creationism?
quote:
...is incapable of explaining the existance of life, ...
Well, if you have a better one, we'd be glad to discuss it...
quote:
... and requires far too much blind faith to believe in its' unsubstantiated claims.
As far as I know, deriving conclusions based on evidence and fundamental principles is hardy blind faith. Perhaps you could give us a definition of blind faith and we could evaluate what you are saying.
quote:
Sorry
Rrrriiiiiight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jet, posted 01-21-2003 9:05 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 12:15 AM edge has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 120 (30348)
01-27-2003 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
01-24-2003 8:48 AM


Actually, there was a lenghty discussion on this already in a forum I started in "Is it Science" but, for the sake of argument I will outline the basic flaws in the TOE as it pertains to true science.
***There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".
Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.
Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.
On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific.***(please see original posting in the aforementioned forum to access reference site.)
As to your "wind" comment, I have been instructed by the administrator not to insult other members, which would be the only appropriate response to that sophomoric query.
As to your reliance on "evidence", I must question your sincerity. There is far more evidence of Intelligent Design throughout the universe than there is for what I can only consider a most childish theory, that being the TOE. I do not mean to be insulting here, it is just that the TOE is so bankrupt when it comes to honest scientific analysis that it is my personal conclusion that only childlike faith, such as believing in santa claus or the easter bunny, can enable someone to accept the TOE at face value.
As an ex-christian, (albeit a catholic, which is a matter best discussed in another forum), you must surely understand the neccessity of faith when it comes to accepting that which cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt using nothing beyond the methods of true scientific inquiry. Belief in Intelligent Design, given the overwhelming evidence throughout the universe, is a much more logical conclusion to arrive at than a belief in the TOE.
I realize that you differ with me on this matter and I doubt that I would be able to convince you of any error on your part because of your animosity towards christianity, based upon false revelations you received while you were a catholic. Nevertheless, I must continue to try to persuade you that the TOE is totally incorrect and that there truly is a Creator of the Universe and all that it holds within its' expanse, and beyond.
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein
[This message has been edited by Jet, 01-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 01-24-2003 8:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 01-27-2003 4:21 PM Jet has replied
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 01-28-2003 4:18 PM Jet has replied
 Message 57 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:48 AM Jet has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13089
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 39 of 120 (30350)
01-27-2003 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jet
01-27-2003 3:55 PM


Jet writes:
As to your "wind" comment, I have been instructed by the administrator not to insult other members, which would be the only appropriate response to that sophmoric query.
Please accept a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. See you tomorrow.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jet, posted 01-27-2003 3:55 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by DanskerMan, posted 01-27-2003 11:07 PM Admin has replied
 Message 43 by Jet, posted 01-28-2003 11:49 PM Admin has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 120 (30386)
01-27-2003 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Admin
01-27-2003 4:21 PM


Jet writes:
As to your "wind" comment, I have been instructed by the administrator not to insult other members, which would be the only appropriate response to that sophmoric query.
Please accept a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. See you tomorrow.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator
------------------------------
I'm just jumping in here last minute, but it appears to me that there is unfair treatment happening here, Jet mentions "sophmoric query" and gets a 24 hr suspension, whereas SLPx calls Peter Borger a "shithead" and gets no penalty.
Any comments?
Regards,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 01-27-2003 4:21 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 01-28-2003 3:35 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 46 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 1:08 AM DanskerMan has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13089
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 41 of 120 (30458)
01-28-2003 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by DanskerMan
01-27-2003 11:07 PM


sonnikke writes:
I'm just jumping in here last minute, but it appears to me that there is unfair treatment happening here, Jet mentions "sophmoric query" and gets a 24 hr suspension, whereas SLPx calls Peter Borger a "shithead" and gets no penalty.
First, please bring violations of the forum guidelines to the attention of one of the moderators. Their emails are Admin, Adminaquility and Adminnemooseus.
Second, a search for "shithead" reveals no SLPx post using this word, other than quoting you. Perhaps he edited his original post?
Third, SLPx consistently skirts the guidelines without crossing the boundaries, or at least not by much. Suspension seems overly harsh, but then what should be done? I have no answer.
Fourth, the board moderators don't have the time to track down every claim, and SLPx's most recent frustration with Peter Borger seems justified since board administration is taking no action when Peter Borger says, "The GUToB is new, my friend. Did you check all 235 google hits?" I didn't check all 235, but I did waste my time checking the first 100. Only a couple hits dealt with Peter's GUToB, and they were authored by Peter. The rest had to do with islands, bays, languages or were in foreign languages or scripts that I couldn't understand. It is a violation of forum guidelines to misrepresent, but board administration does not have the time to check all the claims. I don't blame SLPx for calling Peter a loon. Either Peter is crazy because he thinks every hit is on-topic, or he's crazy to believe other people are that dumb, or Peter is maliciously trying to waste other people's time.
All that being said, I have to say that messages from members like Jet and Ten-sai are almost always very interesting and a fun read, but I always apply the heat/light rule. All heat and no light (usually in the form of too much name-calling with too little substance) is a pretty sure route to a suspension.
The feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by DanskerMan, posted 01-27-2003 11:07 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 01-29-2003 2:07 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13089
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 42 of 120 (30460)
01-28-2003 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jet
01-27-2003 3:55 PM


Hi Jet!
Your posting privileges have been restored. Enjoy!
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jet, posted 01-27-2003 3:55 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 12:18 AM Admin has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 120 (30499)
01-28-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Admin
01-27-2003 4:21 PM


I must admit I didn't see that suspension coming. Apparently it is appropriate to refer to someone as a "loon" or as being "crazy", but to reference someones' comment as being "sophomoric" is a no-no. Go figure!
Sophomoric: Exhibiting immaturity. Lack of judgment.
Crazy: Affected with madness; insane. Foolish or impractical; senseless.
Loon: One who is crazy or deranged. A lunatic.
Perhaps the problem is that the definitions of these terms has been changed and that I now need a new dictionary to keep me abreast of our 21st century vernacular.
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 01-27-2003 4:21 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:30 AM Jet has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 120 (30501)
01-29-2003 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by edge
01-25-2003 3:05 PM


I am almost afraid to reply to posts anymore, as even the most modest negativity voiced by me results in suspension. At any rate, I will respond to that which I feel is safe to respond to.
1. John Paul? If your reference concerns the current pope then all I can say is contact Schraf. She is the ex-catholic here and better qualified to comment on infallibility. If John Paul is merely the name of a member of the EVC then no, I don't know John Paul.
2. Actually, I am quite demanding when it comes to creationism. In fact, I must hold the idea of "Creation by Intelligent Design" to an even higher standard than the TOE because with the acceptance of creationism, one must also accept personal responsibility for ones' actions, acknowledging both accountability and a day or reckoning. Acceptance of the TOE demands neither. The only demand of the TOE is survival of the fittest, be it through mutation or subjugation.
3. Please reference my initial post in "Evolution is not Science" for a better understanding on the failures of the TOE to withstand the test of being a viable scientific endeavor. Then feel free to comment further on this matter.
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 01-25-2003 3:05 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 10:20 PM Jet has replied
 Message 59 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 10:12 AM Jet has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 120 (30502)
01-29-2003 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Admin
01-28-2003 4:18 PM


Enjoy?
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 01-28-2003 4:18 PM Admin has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 120 (30507)
01-29-2003 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by DanskerMan
01-27-2003 11:07 PM


Be not dismayed at the obvious unfair treatment that I often receive at this website, (albeit, I do appreciate the notice that you posted, and any support that is directed towards myself, regardless of whether or not my views themselves are supported).
Percy, Schraf, and a few others that need not be mentioned, have an open hostility towards me, but usually rely on the excuse that not all posts or posters can be properly supervised given the limited man/womanpower at this present time.
Their hostility towards me is to be expected, considering that I am a strong advocate of creationism as well as an extremely vocal opponent of the TOE. I harbor no ill will towards any of them. I simply accept that they are misled and illinformed. Much of the behaviour exhibited by the administrators concerning my suspensions is based more upon their objection to my belief than to anything else. Vulgarity and insult is not a prerequisite when it comes to silencing me for a time, as you have obviously noticed.
Still, I am willing to bide my time in order to voice my opinions and objections to the TOE. Again, thanks for your support, limited as it may be.
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by DanskerMan, posted 01-27-2003 11:07 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by DanskerMan, posted 01-29-2003 2:14 PM Jet has replied
 Message 60 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 10:25 AM Jet has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 120 (30577)
01-29-2003 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Admin
01-28-2003 3:35 PM


"Second, a search for "shithead" reveals no SLPx post using this word, other than quoting you. Perhaps he edited his original post?"
Admin
--------------------------
Just to clarify, it was post #2 in "Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA" found on the Evolution board.
Slpx called dr. Borger a "Scheisskopf" which is german for "shithead", hence a search would turn up nothing.
Thanks for the reply.
Regards,
S.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 01-28-2003 3:35 PM Admin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024