oh yeah, like S.B. virginity with loopholes. what would have been of my college days in southern USA without them!
i'll ddr barry manilow songs just to showoff for this.
How can Christians support both?
- Thread starter bac
- Start date
i'll ddr barry manilow songs just to showoff for this.
one of the things i like about you is you're at your funniest when you don't try to be.
yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Ah yes. The book which underpins the whole of the biological sciences.yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
I'd call semi-literal belief in some mythical tome passed down 3000 years through god-knows-whose-hands (pun intended) a bit more outrageous than "belief" in some educated dude's 150 year old book about his objective observations of the world around him, wouldn't you?yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
So your saying you can't tell the difference between "faith" and "evidence based observations"? 
So do you base your arrest evidence on faith or things you have observed?
oster_oops:
Look, whether or not you believe in evolution, let's not make absurd comparisons. It doesn't bring your arguments any credibility when you appear to not be able to look at carefully observed, peer-reviewed scientific claims that have been upheld by 150 years of continued testing, and differentiate that from a book whose origins are only vaguely understood at best, full of stories for which we have little to no evidence they even occurred, about a being whose existence is completely unprovable.yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Just because you don't like the science, or don't agree with the science doesn't make it the same as faith. The scientific method is not based on believing in something for which there is no physical evidence.
the point is that they're both based on "faith" as both are lacking the ability to scientifically prove their claim. i'm not saying darwin was wrong because no one can either prove or disprove his theory; same goes for the bible.
That's just all sorts of wrong.
One has an overwhelming pile of evidence from the scientific community based on observations of thousands of living organisms on a myriad of scales, from microevolution to macroevolution. Will it ever be proven as hard fact? No, probably not - but a "theory" in the scientific community is NOT the same as what the rest of the world generally defines as a "theory." In science, a theory is a model for describing behavior that is generally accepted to be at least probable. Most importantly, it is testable using the scientific method.
Faith in God is not based on evidence, not observable and not testable. Period.
I am not questioning or arguing with your belief in God, but do not make the mistake of thinking that scientific theory is the same as religious faith. It is not, and claiming otherwise demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject. The evidence for evolution is not limited to Darwin looking at a few finches and having an idea spring into his head.
it's called "probable cause". it means that the crime was "likely" to have been committed by the offender. that can be anything from observing the crime personally or taking someones word for it. not exactly a good analogy.So do you base your arrest evidence on faith or things you have observed?
Yeah, if you didn't personally see the person commit the crime, it didn't happen, according to your criteria.
It's actually a perfect analogy in light of your claim. But that doesn't matter, because apparently when the ball is in your court you take the net down and roll it back over to us...
um...i was under the impression that the third leg of the scientific method is " 3. Test the hypothesis with a controlled experiment
", or perhaps my ultra-liberal university had it all wrong? even my zoology professor admitted to me that the theory of evolution fails to have the ability to be reproduced, thus making it, (in her PHD'd words...) a "faith" based theory.
again, i'm not saying it's wrong but you cannot say that it meets all of the steps of the scientific method. i can theorize which detergent gets my clothes brighter because i can repeat the test and change the variables at will, this is not the case with evolution.
there has been immense work and study into this theory but you cannot tell me that the theory of evolution is devoid of any "faith" that it has occurred at all.
A very common misconception is that evolution is not testable.
That, again, is just wrong. A test isn't limited to a few guys in a lab trying to reproduce results in a petri dish (though I believe they have essentially reproduced microevolution in lab experiments, too lazy to Google the results right now). A test can just as easily be making observations about the world and comparing it to an expected outcome.
Evolution is certainly one of the most difficult scientific theories to prove, but comparing it to a collection of stories and the existence of a being for which there is no evidence whatsoever is just absurdity.
again, created by whom?
you can observe quite an alarming bit of faith in all those whacked out televangelist netwerks.
& in the good book, faith is tested more places than you can swing a dead goat
maybe you meant something else; something "bookish", or whatever you people "study" in your "schools"
This isn't an argument about intelligent design or creationism, $tinkle. There have been a hundred of those in the P.D. forum.
The point is only that a scientific text that has been tested repeatedly over time (& not in the televangelist way, which is not controlled, impartial or repeatable in all circumstances) is not the same as the Bible.
The point is only that a scientific text that has been tested repeatedly over time (& not in the televangelist way, which is not controlled, impartial or repeatable in all circumstances) is not the same as the Bible.
bac: this week's this american life (one of my fav radio shows) offers relevant insight on your direct question, coming into sharp focus around 27:00
Traditionally conceived, the scientific method requires a controlled experiment, right? I don't see how limited real-world observation qualifies as a controlled experiment. I am in no way attacking the validity of evolution- just qualifying its points.
To the broader point, I think it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution depends on faith. If I accept the likelihood of a theory, that does not necessarily rely on something outside of facts or logic. If I were to make claims of absolute and complete truth with regard to evolution theory as it currently stands, then there might be issues where faith comes into play.
On a broader point, the debate between religion and science/faith and reason is mostly ridiculous. I honestly think that the debate between evolution and intelligent design is mostly bogus as well.
On a broader point, the debate between religion and science/faith and reason is mostly ridiculous. I honestly think that the debate between evolution and intelligent design is mostly bogus as well.
Many phenomena cannot be practically tested via the traditional controlled experiment where an independent variable is manipulated to produce a result. Natural experiments are a valid method of testing can be highly reliable if enough data is collected and much of the knowledge you take for granted about the world is based on such experiments. Virtually all earth sciences are grounded in natural experiments, as is economics, astronomy, etc.
As I said, there have been many discussions on this very topic in the P.D. forum and OMGF certainly has more patience than I for mining links and arguing. No matter what points you want to qualify about evolution, it still doesn't make a book like the Origin of Species equivalent to the Bible. That's my only point in all of this... the fact that evolution isn't concretely and indisputably proven doesn't mean that there isn't far more real evidence for it than there is for the alternative of, "well, God did it."
Not everything is proven, so we take the best available explanation and work from there. Just because we aren't quite sure about the genetic causes of Alzheimer's doesn't mean that our current research is on par with a shaman's book of incantations.
edit: in regards to your latest post, I see we mostly agree. I am not trying to convince someone change their religious beliefs, but writing off a hundred and fifty years of careful scientific research as being the same as any story out of the Bible is frustrating to me, since it's just so far off the mark.
on this thorny topic, the holly koran has thoroughly captured allah's essence, for your enjoyment
Well written post- thanks. I agree with what you are saying; there are many sciences that must rely on natural experiments due to, quite simply, the way the world works and the limits of human action. I would still contend that there is some fundamental difference between controlled and natural experiments (in philosophy, if not always in practice). This does not necessitate that the results of one are intrinsically more valid than the other, just that this is one of the reasons evolution is a theory. Of course, I bet lots of the things that we consider practical knowledge are not too much more than theories, if held to the same standard of proof.
My last post was made more out of constant annoyance at both sides of the reason vs. faith debate (or whatever you want to call it). That faith cannot be justified by reason alone and faith is not a valid replacement in a rational system are both immaterial points- questions based on a misunderstanding of both sides and their intersection.
further reading at sciam blog about the curious marriage of science & public opinion from late march.
bible gets a mention as though it's scientifically valid from the Yale uni poll, too. (why else would scientific american cover it?)
bible gets a mention as though it's scientifically valid from the Yale uni poll, too. (why else would scientific american cover it?)
Cats and the moon are never in the bible, why is that?
Find one thing in the bible that can't be contradicted in another part of the bible.
FFS the stupid book says the world started like 5000 years ago.
Find one thing in the bible that can't be contradicted in another part of the bible.
FFS the stupid book says the world started like 5000 years ago.
nor are references to online sword fights. maybe we don't exist (!?)
Yum...I do believe that the bush Admin uses and used the Lord as the a praganda tool. The people who follow him and say this is chirstian way, are the ones who show up at church just to accountted for. Speaking for myself I do not support the bush admin,I thought it was scam from the start. I also believe that the only terror we have to deal with is the goverment who strip the people of their power.
i always laugh whenever somebody starts bawlin about the rights and powers that the bush administration has supposedly taken from us.
i think it's about time someone starts listing all of the rights and powers that they've now lost as a result of george bush.
c'mon.
let's have em.
We'll start with the easy ones; if you can comprehend those we'll move onto more subtle ones:
Freedom of the press
Right to assemble
Freedom of religion
Habeus Corpus
Presumption of innocence
Due process of law (often misinterpreted as right to privacy, which it is not; it is however protection from search and siezure)
To put it another way, Constitutional Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 15 have all been reinterpreted by the current administration, resulting in either increased power of the government over people, or reduced rights of the people under the governement. 2 is also being eroded, but I wouldn't argue by the current admin.
That's a healthy start... we'll see how you well you digest it.
Ok maybe I should restate it isnt just good old Bush and His admin doing all the bad. It also the big companies who have help the Administration into office, I am going quote my father( I dont if he copy this statement or not) I can remember when America was about making a business, but now America is about making a profit This administration has taking it to the extreme. They have broadened the gap between rich and poor. A good Example is China. First of all the administration has made it easier for big manufacturing companies to out source their work to china, Mexico, and etc. Yes, the products can be made cheaper by outsourcing products, but do you see that savings on the price tag at your store? No that savings goes into pocket of the Management of the company and there a few more Americans with out jobs. We make easier for China do business in our country, but when an American company tries to make a business in China, bam!!! They close door in your face, unless you agree that all design and manufacturing is done in China. So how is that fair trade?????? I can go on but this not the thread to talk about this subject. To stay on track with this thread, I still stand by what I said earlier, the Administration used their so called Christian beliefs as propaganda.
A side note:
I not a total Bush basher, because when he was the governor of Texas I believe he made so good decisions. One was the cap he put on frivolous lawsuits in the state of Texas. Plus He only human like everyone else.
Hey while you are on the stereotyping train there, What about the ones you dedicated or dedicated their lives so that less fortunate people of this world can live a decent life. Im not referring to the men and women of the military either. Although my hat is off to those guys.
<tumbleweed>
Maybe you missed the key word "many" in there.
first of all.
freedom of the press.
right now the media in this country is spewing more anti administration speech than ever before.
and none have been shut down by our government.
right to assemble.
this may be tough for you to digest.
if you are a legal citizen of this country.
you have the right to assemble.
show me where you can't.
i'm not going to let you make blanket statements and pass them off as reality.
if you're ignorant enough to let your assembly be infiltrated by trouble makers, you'll end up with a situation like the one out in LA.
and if you're not a legal resident of this country, and you're out there protesting.
well then, you should be rounded up and hauled way.
try getting together a bunch of united states citizens and marching your butt across the border and begin protesting against mexico and their economic failures that have led to the mass exodus to our land.
presumtion of innocence.
that snafu has been happening in this country long before georgie boy was even born.(trust me. i'm no fan of his either.)
he's not responsible for that eroding away any faster than under any other administration.
due process ??
anyone here have their door kicked in lately ?
freedom of religion ?
c'mon give me a break.
what churches has the government gone in and shut down ?
what churches aren't given tax free status in this country ?
c.mon man.
get away from the internet speak.
enter the real world and give me some true real life examples of what specific freedoms you.ve lost as of the begining of the george bush administration.
your list is weak.
very very very weak.
does girl power count?
how about the power to come up with the list?
my line of work allows me to deal directly with homeowners and land owners and property managers.
95% of the time that ends up being a woman.
no matter if the guy is the major bread winner or not, she ultimately for the most part controlls the household finances.
and they're usually the ones writing the checks.
if that ain't power, i don't know what is.
No I did not miss the word "many" He is sertotyping those "Many" as chirstains, which they are not!!Maybe you missed the key word "many" in there.
Another side note, threads like this should have a rebuttal section, so when you right down your thought or Idea you have to write a rebuttal of it.
funny, i always thought the judicial branch interpreted teh kkkonstitution.
You may not call them Christians, but they call themselves Christians which is all that matters.
which browser do you use: lynx or webscape?