Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 166 of 216 (140392)
09-06-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by nator
09-06-2004 2:31 PM


If being a Christian makes people as intellectually dishonest as you have shown yourself to be, then I am sure I never want to be one again.
Please do not judge Christianity by christians.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:31 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:42 PM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 167 of 216 (140394)
09-06-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by lfen
09-06-2004 2:24 PM


quote:
You are not, of course, required to accept the theory of evolution.
...and never have I demanded that he do accept it.
I have, all along, simply been pointing out that his reasons for rejecting it were illogical and baseless.
quote:
The other matters you addressed I'll just let drop, simply noting that a logical defense is most often preferable to sarcasm because it is more informative to those who read your post and less subject to misinterpretation.
I was not being sarcastic when I brought up the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease to show the illogic of rejecting the ToE for the reasons rat gave, which were because there were "gaps" in the theory, and because the ToT wasn't proven 100%.
These other theories were simply good examples of theories rat was not likely to disbelieve, even though there was less suppoting evidence for them compared to the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 2:24 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 4:24 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 168 of 216 (140396)
09-06-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by jar
09-06-2004 2:33 PM


quote:
Please do not judge Christianity by christians.
Isn't there something in the bible about "you shall know them by their fruits"?
How else can I evaluate the usefulness and merits of a religion than by the behavior of it's adherents?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2004 01:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:46 PM nator has replied
 Message 176 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:45 PM nator has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 169 of 216 (140399)
09-06-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by nator
09-06-2004 2:42 PM


Isn't there something in the bible about "you shall know them by their fruits"?
The problem is all you've been seeing are the fruits.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:42 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 6:37 PM jar has not replied
 Message 196 by nator, posted 09-07-2004 8:20 AM jar has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 170 of 216 (140420)
09-06-2004 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by nator
09-06-2004 2:40 PM


I was not being sarcastic when I brought up the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease to show the illogic of rejecting the ToE for the reasons rat gave
Schraf,
I didn't think you were being sarcastic, but I didn't want to pursue that further as it seems like it could bog down in conflicting interpretations that wouldn't be on topic. In saying that I wasn't implying a criticism of you. I was referring to RiverRAts sarcasm about gravity as not being that informative and had he been more discriptive about his perception that would have been more helpful.
What I'm getting weary of, and I've not been at this board very long, is the hackneyed criticisms of ToE gleaned from creationist websites. And I'm getting the sense that if someone hasn't a basic grasp of the fundamentals of genetics and cell function then they can't really grasp how the ToE works and the spurious criticisms will seem plausible to them. So I'm working with this idea of backing up from the ToE to genetics and seeing if that is a more hopeful approach. Don't know though. The other idea is too take pressure off in the sense that belief is not required but one can understand without believing, and so begin with understanding without feeling any requirement of changing beliefs.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:40 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 09-07-2004 8:21 AM lfen has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 171 of 216 (140427)
09-06-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by nator
09-06-2004 2:08 PM


Boy, you are writing me novels, lol
If you think that Gravity is such a simple concept, why don't you explain the various Gravitational Theories here, including their role in planetaty orbits and stellar formation. Throw in some stuff explaining the gravitation of black holes for bonus points.
Please indicate which version you think is most accurate, and why.
Last time, I accept gravity, or whatever you would like to call the force that makes blood drip, but I do not accept any gravitational theories, as 100% accurate.
No more talk about gravity ok?
I am having to correct you almost every time you respond to something I've written, because you are not correctly grasping or comprehending what I write.
Nor you I.
Just because you state something irrelevant doesn't mean I do not get it.
Do las Vegas casinos lose money because the odds are irrelevant? Or, do they make money precisely because they can calculate the odds very accurately?
I thought I cleared up the fact that mathematical odds, and biological odds are completely different.
Anyway no matter the odds, people beat them sometimes.
I'm sure at some point they had to put the odds greatly in their favor, because despite the odds, people can still win.
You were telling me that you rejected evolution because an individual, me, could not instantaneously change into a very different species.
No you missed my point.
Because my genome is fixed. Evolution does not happen to individuals, but to populations.
Ok, I admit I do not understand what you are saying here. Wouldn't your genome change should the populations change? Doesn't that make it not fixed? Why is evolution limited to populations only?
Since we know that whales are mammals, what features would we expect to find in their ancestors if they evolved from land-dwelling mammals?
Ok, I will give you my personal creationalist theory.
Since we are created in God's image, he probably made things the same way we make things. We start off simple, then go on to the more complicated stuff. Every think of that? There is prenty evidence of this. Can you bring evidence to the table that disproves this?
Since one day is like a thousand years to God, he could have taken as long as he wanted, or it could appear to have taken a long time to us for all this to happen.
But yes, I agree the current evidence for whale evolution is compelling.
Do you know how you got your genetic information?
Yes from an individual.
That's good that you have questions and want to learn more, but judging from what you have shown me in our discussions, you are far, far from having a basic understanding of evolution.
Because I question it so much, doesn't mean I do not have at least a basic understanding of it.
Let me guess. Those "debate videos" are all from religious and Creationist sources, right?
Those debates are only convincing to the uneducated, which you are.
Yes but they include non-creationalist people who argue the side of evolution. Why would an evolutionist want to produce a video like that? Better yet, why don't they?
Have you considered that God used evolution?
Yes, but that raises even more questions. For years and years that what I thought happened. We were created to evolve. Then for some reason, I thought that was foolish to think. I think it was because of subjective reasoning though.
I.E. If there is a God, why would he not come to us and tell us why we are here, and how we came to be. Or better yet, why would he allow the bible to be written if it wasn't true? I mean he is all powerful right? But now I find out that really evolution only disputes the literal translation of genesis, which was a dream anyway.
I can explain other religions, because Jesus kind of hints towards their existance (false Gods), and how they must change. God may have presented himself to them, and for the time it was ok for many humans to believe in many different Gods, which are all really the same God. Now they must come to Christ. If it's all for his glory it could kind of make sense.
This is why in my belief that I try to follow what Jesus taught us, and that is what is most important to me. That doesn't make the rest of the bible useless though, there are many stories that teach a great many lessons in there.
You have taken a scientists word for it that they are asteroids.
Or I have seen actual pictures of them from spacecraft. This is real time science, not digging something up that is "millions" years old, and saying what happened. Big difference.
What, pray tell, are "biological odds", and what makes the math used in the statistical analysis of Biology data fundamentally different from any other math.
Because the analysis is subject to many variables that may be unknown.
So the odds could never fully be known.
Just like astronomers trying to figure out if the earth is going to get hit by an object or not. We can give odds on the known objects, and even then, one of those objects could be hit by another unknown object, and then be pushed into earth's orbit, we just don't know.
It is fallatious to say, AFTER YOU WON, that your odds of winning were 1:1.
Maybe, maybe not. we haven't figured out that yet. There is much to learn about life.
You odds of winning are the same as anybody else's who bought the same number of tickets as you did.
No...no they weren't. They pick different #'s than me.
Math is math.
Not everybody in this forum thinks that, I have read contrary to that. It is however what I think, that math is math. 2+2always=4
No, they also predict the distribution of number of winning tickets from random chance.
Where is faith involved?
I don't think they do that. Can you support that claim?
Or how they could attain that number? They would have to know the unknown to calculate that with accuracy.
No to the first sentence, because it's random, which is dealing with statistics, and no to the second sentence, because that has nothing to do with statistics.
Statistics? I am talking about the odds of winning.
You who thinks that Murpey's Law is used by insurance companies understands statistics better than me.
I know this for a fact. If there is a chance of anything happening, they will charge us for the possibility of it happening, not how many times it has actually happened. Odds from previous accidents have something to do with it, but not everything to do with it.
Well, sure, it depends upon how many people play.
But the rest is completely accurate.
Where is faith involved?
I don't know, ask the millions who play, and think they have a chance at winning. Thinking you have a chance no matter the odds is a sure sign of faith to me. Not just a chance per say, but a chance at beating the odds. i.e. I believe I can beat the odds. People even get addicted to that faith.
Remember faith is belief in something for which there is no proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:08 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 6:23 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 179 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 6:26 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 180 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 6:29 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 182 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 7:07 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 172 of 216 (140428)
09-06-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by happy_atheist
09-06-2004 2:13 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
Ok, thanks. I will let you know. I will also pray about it.
I mean the highway interchange is obvious, but I didn't mention until after you said that you were at a crossroad, so I can't prove to you that it was my vision. I screwd up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 2:13 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 6:21 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 173 of 216 (140430)
09-06-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by sidelined
09-06-2004 2:24 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
You are the grand prize winner!
You are the first person who apologized to me on this forum, and you get my greatest respect. Thank you for that, however small it may seem, it is awesome. I also apologize when I'm wrong.
I live close to there, I think thats why I was seeing that interchange.
I am also wondering why it was that particular interchange.
To the left of that interchange where I see the blackness is actually an Air Force base. I wonder if..are you reading this happy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 2:24 PM sidelined has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 174 of 216 (140431)
09-06-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by lfen
09-06-2004 2:24 PM


I like your attitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 2:24 PM lfen has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 175 of 216 (140434)
09-06-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by nator
09-06-2004 2:31 PM


Now you hurt my feelings, seriously.
I always admit my mistakes.
I am sorry you feel that way.
If I say I am not qualified to argue about evolution, and you keep trying to argue with me about it, what should I do. I am visiting those links you gave, but there is a lot of reading there.
Try not to think of it as weaseling, but that maybe, just maybe I can bring a new point to light. You obviously have misconceptions about odds, yet you won't admit it. Since science is based on odds and statistical data, and odds themselves are flawed, Plus data can be wrong because of what goes into making them, then science can be flawed. This doesn't mean it is or it isn't. Just that it can be.
I am very interested in what you are telling me, otherwise I wouldn't even talk to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:31 PM nator has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 176 of 216 (140437)
09-06-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by nator
09-06-2004 2:42 PM


Ok, I am glad you asked that question.
Wouldn't you admit that not every Christian seems to be the same or acting in a God like manor? Do you think Hilter was really following Jesus when he killed all those Jews?
The bible says this:
Romans 8:9
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
So since you are a good judge of who is in christ or not, then you can judge them by their fruits. The only mistakes we make are letting those people keep us from God. God rightfully belongs to you. Its your personal relationship with him that takes precendence over all other things, people, religions, whatever.
If you study Christ or not (I don't know that you do, but I assume you have a knowledge of him) It is very clear who has the spirit of Christ. Priest who molest children clearly are not in the spirit of Christ. Does this mean that all Priests aren't? I don't really care, all I do is forgive those people, so that I can be forgiven, and let God deal with them. He has never let me down yet.
So I don't think that you should lump all people together like you just did, and then use that as an exuse to not believe in God. It would be like me after talking to some of the scientists at my previous job lump all scientists into that category. I don't, even though you may think I do. I won't discriminate, no matter what the odds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:42 PM nator has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 177 of 216 (140442)
09-06-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 5:25 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
I've been at "crossroads" for the last 6 years at least though. First I did my GCSE's, then I went to college and did my A-Levels, then I went to Uni and left home, did lots of exams there. Now i'm at a different uni about to finish. We're always at crossroads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:25 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:15 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 178 of 216 (140444)
09-06-2004 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 5:23 PM


No, they also predict the distribution of number of winning tickets from random chance.
Where is faith involved?
I don't think they do that. Can you support that claim?
Or how they could attain that number? They would have to know the unknown to calculate that with accuracy
Statistics is ALL about determining probability distributions. They will know with large accuracy how many people will win on average. They will have a profit margin that they know they will meet depending on how many tickets they sell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:23 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:16 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 179 of 216 (140445)
09-06-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 5:23 PM


I'm sure at some point they had to put the odds greatly in their favor, because despite the odds, people can still win.
It's not accurate to say that people win "despite the odds" because that implies that the odds say that "can't" win. The odds never do that, they just determine how many winners there will be on average given a certain number of plays. The casinos definately have the odds in their favour, they always have the odds in their favour. That is the reason they don't lose money! Even if they pay out a big payment every now and then, they are in profit at the end of the year. They're not taking chances, they know they will make money overall (assuming they're following good business practices and know their maths)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:23 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:19 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 180 of 216 (140446)
09-06-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 5:23 PM


You who thinks that Murpey's Law is used by insurance companies understands statistics better than me.
I know this for a fact. If there is a chance of anything happening, they will charge us for the possibility of it happening, not how many times it has actually happened. Odds from previous accidents have something to do with it, but not everything to do with it.
How do you think they determine the odds? They don't pluck them from mid air. They gather statistical data, produce statistical models, then use the past data to determine the odds. They have to gather personal information about you so they can place you in a demographic, then they determine the odds of someone in that demographic having a particular sort of accident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:23 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:24 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024