 |
| |
|
|
Eggman
|
|
Urban Ranger: Actually, I spend a great deal of time in Off-Topic. And except for my observation of your questionable logic (which I admitted), I have been on topic. I used to get into off topic debates all the time, helping to ruin good threads with tangents. But eventually I learned.
Now, back to the flood. OK, maybe a comet wouldn't be able to produce that much water. I don't know. I was merely brainstorming. Moreover, the flood does not need to be long-term. A month long flood would be enough to cause major havoc since it seems likely that many dinosaurs couldn't swim (especially against strong currents) and the ones that could would have trouble getting to their food supply. How about a rash of tsunamis caused by an impact in the ocean or a massive underwater earthquake? Are you telling me that there is *no* mechanism that could produce a major flood, even in a local proximity?
BTW, I don't take kindly to threats. Not very good logic...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain Kirk
|
|
You guys are missing one key link. Christians don't need scientific proof to justify our beliefs. We take things like God, the flood, and everything else on faith.
So you people can come up with your theories and proof. We will keepe our faith.
By the way the race in Voyager was called the Voth. They supposedly evolved from the hardosaur. They believed they were like the first race to evolve in the region. They were deep in Doctrine (compare to Bible ?).
One scientist named Gegen found the remains of Lieuteneant Hogan. So he claimed that Humans and Voth had common ancestry. He was dubbed a heretic. Yadda, yadda he agreed to recant his views and reassigned to a different field of science.
So there is a synopsis.
------------------
Damnit, Jim I'm a doctor not an animal psychologist
|
|
| |
|
|
|
John-SJ
|
|
Silicon Valley, USA
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bblue on 01-03-2000 02:45 AM
Maybe one of the more intellegent religious people here would give an answer to why they have choosen faith over science?
...
|
Well, how about this. Science does not offer any definite answers on the topic, remember, it IS called the "theory of evolution". By definition then, evolution is not proven. Neither is faith. I have never seen a dinosaur, nor have I seen an ape give birth to a human child, or a lizard grow wings and feathers. On the other hand, I have seen the workings of God in my own life and in the life of my family.
Whichever I choose, science or faith, it will be an impirical(sp?) evidence, not hard science. In my heart I *know* God *IS*, I can't prove it, but neither can you disprove it.
My answer may not be one that satisfies you, but it *does* satisfy me.
John-SJ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
John-SJ
|
|
Silicon Valley, USA
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
M@ni@c:
I will never have that proof, just as you will never have proof that they are not. The things that are seen (provable) require no faith, it is only the unseen that requires it.
I have faith in the unseen (unprovable) workings of God in the world, you (may or may not) have faith in the unseen (unprovable) workings of evolution.
So, my faith in God has enriched my life dramatically, I wonder if others can say the same?
John-SJ
P.S.
To at least give lip service to the topic of this thread, yes, (this) creationist/believer will buy/play Dinosaurs. Why wouldn't I?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Biddles
|
 |
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
John-SJ: Well, how about this. Science does not offer any definite answers on the topic, remember, it IS called the "theory of evolution". By definition then, evolution is not proven. Neither is faith. I have never seen a dinosaur, nor have I seen an ape give birth to a human child, or a lizard grow wings and feathers. On the other hand, I have seen the workings of God in my own life and in the life of my family.
So what.
They still call pythagoras, pythagoras' theory, yet it is one of the basis' of geometry.
Quantam/Atomic theory is referred to as a theory, yet it is accepted across the board by physicists.
There are plenty of theories that are generally accepted yet are still theories.
------------------
- Biddles
"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
|
|
| |
|
|
|
John-SJ
|
|
Silicon Valley, USA
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
Biddles:
...and the faith I hold is generally accepted by millions of Christians. So what is your point? No matter how generally accepted a theory is, until proven, it is still accepted on *faith*. It just so happens that my faith is in a Person rather than an idea. To each his own, right?
John-Sj
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
To answer the question:
I will buy the game depending on how well I enjoy the demo.
As to faith over science(from a scientist who believes in the Biblical story of Creation): That is not a real choice (as those who have watched Voyager faithfully should know!). The question is: "Why do you choose to believe special creation of life on this planet, as opposed to the slow evolution of life over millions of years?" I can only answer for myself; I chose to believe the Person Who healed my insanity. I have no problems with other Christians who feel that God was working through evolution (C.S.Lewis comes to mind).
I have never seen any good come from arguing Creation vs. Evolution and I believe that is for one very good reason. Most of those who fervently believe in evolution and feel the need to argue against creation are Atheists and an Atheist has no choice but to believe in evolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Jeszenka on 12-19-1999 10:09 PM
And after reading some comments in this thread, its amazing that atheists still label themselves as "free thinkers" with open minds.
|
We don't "label ourselves" anything.We simply examine evidence ,without bias,and then accept the truth...no matter how ugly or unpopular that truth might be.I would much rather,there were such things as gods and miracles and such,and especially an afterlife.But I can admit that such things contradict even the most rudamentary laws of the universe and I suspect deep down most creationists know this on some level(else why would the pope ride around in a bulletproof car?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-05-2000 11:41 AM
To answer the question:
I will buy the game depending on how well I enjoy the demo.
As to faith over science(from a scientist who believes in the Biblical story of Creation): That is not a real choice (as those who have watched Voyager faithfully should know!). The question is: "Why do you choose to believe special creation of life on this planet, as opposed to the slow evolution of life over millions of years?" I can only answer for myself; I chose to believe the Person Who healed my insanity. I have no problems with other Christians who feel that God was working through evolution (C.S.Lewis comes to mind).
I have never seen any good come from arguing Creation vs. Evolution ...
Let's say you had to attend a wedding(or funeral or whatever) and your attendance was totally dependant on your recieveing accurate directions to the chapel.Now your best friend tells you to go north on I-90 and take the "Noah" exit,but your uncle argues that is all wrong and you need to go south and take the "Darwin" exit.The only/best way for you to figure out who is right(in this example) might be to let them debate the issue until one of them realises he was mistaken("oh yeah...,I must have been thinking of that other chapel").
and I believe that is for one very good reason. Most of those who fervently believe in evolution and feel the need to argue against creation are Atheists and an Atheist has no choice but to believe in evolution. |
Actually we have many choices besides superstion and evolution,...but evolution remains the most probable explanation.
------------------
SkeleTony
"Science has always been the greatest benefactor to the survival and advancement of a species....religion and superstition are the adversaries of science"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
SkeleTony69 - Don't be ridiculous! NO ONE "simply examine[s] evidence, without bias", at least no one on this planet. Everyone has an agenda, and they see the world through that agenda.
OK - what else do you have to choose if you don't want/like/believe evolution?
As to your signature; I suggest that you do some reading on Sir Isaac Newton. Take a good look at the assumptions that he made when formulating his theory of gravity and where he got those assumptions.
P.S. - I don't know what happened, but my post, as it is quoted in your most recent post, seems to be merged with another post.
[This message has been edited by CormacMacArt (edited January 05, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-05-2000 12:52 PM
SkeleTony69 - Don't be ridiculous! NO ONE "simply examine[s] evidence, without bias", at least no one on this planet. Everyone has an agenda, and they see the world through that agenda.
OK - what else do you have to choose if you don't want/like/believe evolution?
So if you were introduced to two men,whom you never met before,and told that one of them was a thief,you could pick out the culprit?Of course not.You would (I hope) require more information before you made that decision.I believe an atheist would go further,and question whether even one of them was a thief.
As to your signature; I suggest that you do some reading on Sir Isaac Newton. Take a good look at the assumptions that he made when formulating his theory of gravity and where he got those assumptions.
And I suggest you do some reading about copernicus and also the "Dark ages".Do you realise the first steam engine was built in B.C.?The inventor's "laboratory"(they weren't called that back then) was trashed by religious fanatics.If there had never been periods of "religious revitalism" (the dark ages,the witch hunts etc.)we may have found the cure for cancer,or any number of scientific advances which remain in the realm of sci-fi by now.
P.S. - I don't know what happened, but my post, as it is quoted in your most recent post, seems to be merged with another post.
[This message has been edited by CormacMacArt (edited January 05, 2000).] |
I don't know either.
------------------
SkeleTony
"Science has always been the greatest benefactor to the survival and advancement of a species....religion and superstition are the adversaries of science"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
SkeleTony69 - I didn't realize that you have been responding to my posts inside of what is labeled my "quote".
First -
Quote #1:
Let's say you had to attend a wedding(or funeral or whatever)and your attendance was totally dependant on your recieveing accurate directions to the chapel.Now your best friend tells you to go north on I-90 and take the "Noah" exit,but your uncle argues that is all wrong and you need to go south and take the "Darwin" exit.The only/best way for you to figure out who is right(in this example) might be to let them debate the issue until one of them realises he was mistaken("oh yeah...,I must have been thinking of that other chapel").
Responce: I am NOT minimizing the importance of truth. I am pointing out the futility of attempting to convince an atheist that a god (which he/she does not even believe exits) created life more or less as it is today. It is like trying to build a house and starting with the roof.
Quote #2:
And I suggest you do some reading about copernicus and also the "Dark ages".Do you realise the first steam engine was built in B.C.?The inventor's "laboratory"(they weren't called that back then) was trashed by religious fanatics.If there had never been periods of "religious revitalism" (the dark ages,the witch hunts etc.)we may have found the cure for cancer,or any number of scientific advances which remain in the realm of sci-fi by now.
Responce: This is what is called "evasion". You have not responded to what I said, but simply added more data to the argument. The FACT is that if Newton had been a Muslum, Hindu or an Atheist, he would not have made the following assumptions:
1. The universe is governed by Laws and is not random
2. Those Laws are UNIVERSAL in scope
3. Those Laws are apprehendable by humans
Sir Isaac Newton made those ASSUMPTIONS because he believed in the God described in the Bible and knew that it was in the nature of that God to create a universe where those three assumptions would be true.
I was never denying the negative aspect of those who call themselves religious. Hitler himself (an Atheist), used the pretence of religion in his attempt at genocide.
Second -
What other choice is open to an Atheist other than evolution (Even if it happened on another planet and seeded this one)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pintello
|
 |
Deltona, Florida
Jan 1970
time: 05:14
|
|
Hi CormacMacArt,
I came to the same conclusion you have back when these forums were first openned and similar debates were going on. Everyone starts at with some kind of biases and assumptions and unless they go through a life changing experience like I, and apparently you, have with Christ, nothing is going to change their minds.
I would like to clear up one issue here though. People seem to be assuming that all Creatioinist are Young Earth Creationist. This really isn't the case. As near as I can tell there are 3 main groups of Creationist with sincere Bible beleiving people in all of them who accept the innerrancy and inspiration of the Bible. Those groups can best be summed up as Young Earth Creationist which include people like Dr. Kurt Wise, a Harvard Graduate in Paleontology who studied under Gould. Old Earth Creationist who reject Evelution as not being mathematically plausible which includes people like Dr. Hugh Ross, an Astrophysist and founder of Reasons to Believe. The final group of Creationist are those who accept an Old Earth and also accept Evolution as the means by which God created life. I do not have a name of a famous person in this group, but I do have a friend who has a doctorate from Harvard who studies the corrolation between geological developement and atmospheric development who fits into this category. I can emphatically say that he believes in the innerrancy and inspiration of the Bible and in God, but accepts the possibilty, which is by no means proven, that evolution is also correct. He simply assumes that this is how God created life.
Personally I am currently leaning towards the Old Earth non-evolution group, but I will by no means reject the Young Earth group or the other Old Earth group. I simply do not know. What I do know is that as an Evangelical Christian it is my purpose in life to tell as many people as will listen, about the God of the Bible and what He has done for me personally and for them and then leave it up to them and the influence of God to decide whether or not to accept that Truth, the only Truth in my opinion, or reject it. What I will not do is reject the existence of God. My personal experience have proven emphatically to me that God is real, He does exist, and He is the God of the Christian Bible.
As to whether or not I would buy this game, if it is interesting and has good game play probably. If it does not, no.
Timothy Pintello
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
For some reason AOL keeps booting me without warning everytime I try to post a response to Cormac here(I have typed pages,not easy for me being a hunt & peck-er,only to have this happen just as I am about to post my reply)so if any one would care to carry this debate on or would like to point me to a more appropriate place to engage in this sort of rhetoric,please email me.
tonedeth69@aol.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Somebody out there answer the question:
"How is Pokemon satanic?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lemur866
|
|
Seattle, WA, USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-05-2000 11:41 AM
To answer the question:
The question is: "Why do you choose to believe special creation of life on this planet, as opposed to the slow evolution of life over millions of years?" I can only answer for myself; I chose to believe the Person Who healed my insanity. I have no problems with other Christians who feel that God was working through evolution (C.S.Lewis comes to mind).
I have never seen any good come from arguing Creation vs. Evolution and I believe that is for one very good reason. Most of those who fervently believe in evolution and feel the need to argue against creation are Atheists and an Atheist has no choice but to believe in evolution. |
Ummm....Cormac, an atheist such as myself could believe in all sorts of things besides evolution. Just think about all the other religions out there that believe in other sorts of creation mythology than yours. Did YHWH create the first man out of dust, or did Prometheus and Epimethius fashion them from clay? Or was it Krishna or some other nonsense? The reason atheists all seem to believe in evolution is that it is the only theory of how life came to be that has withstood scientific scrutiny.
And please don't say that your assertions for how life came to be are not scientific and therefore are not subject to review. If you make a claim about the universe, I have the right to know WHY you make that claim. If you say, "I have faith," that means to me that you have chosen that belief for NO reason, that you have nothing to back up your beliefs. That's fine, but why would I give your beliefs any credence? You have to do better than that.
Otherwise, why could't I claim to believe that life on earth arose from invisible pink unicorns. You can't disprove it, can you? But when you ask me WHY I believe in invisible pink unicorns, I say that there is no evidence, I just have faith that they exist. Now, have I done a good job of changing your mind or not?
------------------
Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-01-2000 03:52
|