Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 55 (9191 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: edwest325
Post Volume: Total: 919,068 Year: 6,325/9,624 Month: 173/240 Week: 20/96 Day: 9/7 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 36 of 331 (142188)
09-13-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Robert Byers
09-13-2004 6:04 PM


You are repeating yourself!
Robert you have been warned about simple repeating things which have been answered before. You talk as if no one had commented on these statements before. You are down to only a few more posts like this before losing most of your posting priviledges. Maybe only one more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 6:04 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2004 3:43 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 43 of 331 (147328)
10-04-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JRTjr
10-04-2004 8:18 PM


Two "suggestions"
1) Do stick to the topic of the thread
2) Shrink your signiture to a single line or two.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JRTjr, posted 10-04-2004 8:18 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 55 of 331 (147843)
10-06-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 3:22 PM


Secular?
whatever, several times it has been pointed out to you that the majority of the religions of the world do NOT have any problem with the ToE.
You have failed to acknowledge or discuss this fact. You don't have to agree with it. You simple have to give a rational argument why you don't.
If you continue to totally ignore what is posted in discussions with you then you will be an early candidate for the Remedial forum. In the meantime you may find yourself taking another break with no posting privileges at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 3:22 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 7:05 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 59 of 331 (147916)
10-06-2004 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 7:05 PM


It is AdminNosy NOT NosyNed
I try hard to offer a distinction when operating in different modes. If I fail to do that please note it in suggestions and questions.
Your post consists of nothing but assertions. That is they are your statements about what churchs accept and don't. You claim that a lie has been made about what churchs believe.
You have offered no evidence at all. Your assertions of what others believe isn't worth anything at all.
What you need to do under these circumstances is what others have to do. Show quotes of what those churches themselves believe.
I will leave it to others to point out where you are wrong about ID and to point out that the IDists are closer in view to the evolutionists than they are to you. Especially those evolutionists who are God believing Christians.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-06-2004 07:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 7:05 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 60 of 331 (147917)
10-06-2004 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coragyps
10-06-2004 8:20 PM


Re: Secular?
This post of Coryagyps, whatever, is an example of what you have to do. You can start with the fundamentalist churchs that will agree with you if you like. When the size of the membership of the churches is added up then we will see how much of a "lie" (as you claim) has been told.
Another thing: be very,very careful about using the word "lie" when you are discussing things you don't know much about. I think it is possible to use it in the forum but only under very select circumstances and you'd better be right a lot more often than wrong.
If you wish to keep making assertions without support then you will lose your full posting privileges.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-06-2004 07:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2004 8:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:12 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 64 of 331 (147928)
10-06-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:06 PM


Not the original question
Jar, Can you prove that the majority of those churches belief is devoid of the common creator being God
whatever, that isn't the issue.
Of course, we all know the various Churchs believe that God is responsible for everything.
The issue at hand is that the majority are willing to accept that how God did it is not in contradiction to modern science.
If you try to move away from the issue at hand I will suspend you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:06 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 67 of 331 (147933)
10-06-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:12 PM


Lie?
Since I don't think I've made any direct statements about what the churches believe I don't know what lie you think I've told.
You have backed up exactly nothing. You have suppiled nothing but your assertions.
If you don't supply some support for your statments and if you don't back up the accusation of lieing very, very well indeed you are about to be suspended until the Remedial forum is properly in place.
Note that you will be held to the guidelines there. We will just work harder to help you understand them.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-06-2004 08:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:12 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:23 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 69 of 331 (147938)
10-06-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 9:23 PM


Re: Lie?
It has been pointed out to you that the churches don't have a problem. There was no lie on my part.
What I am asking of you is that your refute what you've been told with the Church's own statments not your assertions.
And the church's statment that you read doesn't have any problem with the ToE. It is very clear on that. There is no contradiction. God may have made man in his image but he did it through the mechanisms laid out in the ToE. That is clear from the that first church.
The first line at that link:
quote:
Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.
and
quote:
Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science.
I don't intend to argue this with you in any detail there are plenty who will.
You might, however, if you are going to stick to your ideas about what this first church has said show how in the world you can misread the above quotes.
That's just the first one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 9:23 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 10-06-2004 10:00 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 10:01 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 73 of 331 (147952)
10-06-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 10:01 PM


The first Church -- Presbyterian
The statement of the Presbyterian does not go into describing the details. It is very clear from what they have said that there is no conflict with their beiefs and science. That is what they state.
You have not taken the opportunity to explain the quotes that I put up for you. Including the very first line of their statement.
In addtion, you need to understand that many churchs have appeared in court on the side of the scientists and educators. If the Churchs are on your side then why do they do that? Please explain without your usual avoidance.
Until you explain the statement by the church other than through assertions demonstrating that you lack an ability to read English I would suggest that you stop calling anyone a liar. You have two quotes from the statement that are very clear. You are avoiding disussing them. Why?
The church supports the creation of all things by God. The church also supports what science says about how He did this. "The Bible is not a book of science." The church is not about to discuss genetics or the relationship between phenotypes and genotypes or the details of the evolution of any line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 10:01 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 10-07-2004 12:18 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 76 of 331 (147984)
10-07-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
10-07-2004 12:18 AM


Babbling
Well, AdminMoosesus beat me to it.
Your last post was as good an example of babbling as any we have seen. In some strange way it is even more confused and confusing than Brad's.
To carry on rational debate one must be able to handle logical relationships between things. This doesn't seem to be your forte.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 10-07-2004 12:18 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 78 of 331 (151858)
10-22-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by JRTjr
10-22-2004 1:42 AM


Too much in one place
You need to take each of the various claims you have and get them into the right topics. Either existing ones or ones you propose.
This is not the place for everyone to pile on and discuss the various claims you have made. Many of which have been covered here in appropriate topics.
I'll be a bit cranky if anyone does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 1:42 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2004 2:33 AM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 81 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 2:59 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 82 of 331 (151867)
10-22-2004 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by JRTjr
10-22-2004 2:59 AM


Re: Too much in one place
But you see, as Crash so carelessly showed, your arguments are both all over the map, have been discussed elsewhere and are generally based on ignorance of the actual facts.
Your arguement for "which religion's creation story" seems to be heavily based on trying to suggest that an enormously well supported scientific concept it wrong.
Even if you did somehow show it to be wrong how does that tell us which of the many, many competing creation stories should be told. There are, I'm pretty, sure many hundreds of them. All with the same claim to validity as yours. How do we pick?
THAT is the point of this thread.
You various other issues should all be taken to the appropriate scientific threads.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-22-2004 02:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 2:59 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 87 of 331 (176653)
01-13-2005 5:31 PM


T o p i c !
I think we are starting to wander off topic here. The flood issue belongs in another thread people. Thanks
GIJane, may I suggest you take your discussion of the flood to the forum called, appropriately enough, "Geology and the Great Flood". Thanks.
BTW, welcome to EvC. We are all, believe it or not, happy to have you here. That might get lost when you get a dozen posts argueing with anything you say. Most of us are here because we like to agrue.
If you really, really want to try to produce a water tight (pun intended) argument for the flood this is the place to have it tested. Anything you say will be nit-picked to death; that is a great way to shapen one's arguments.
However, it might help you to read over the flood forum. You might find that all arguments you can think up have already been tried. In addition, you may be surprised at the amount of very solid evidence that shows that the flood simply did not happen. A bit of the history of the development of the science of geology would also be helpful for you.
Have fun!

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024