Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:21 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Tanypteryx, Taq (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,009 Year: 9,045/19,786 Month: 1,467/2,119 Week: 227/576 Day: 30/98 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 300 (424727)
09-28-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Force
09-27-2007 5:57 PM


Any ideas I have on this are a WAG(according to jar =)) unless you believe in GOD.

I don't know what 'WAG' means. FYI, I believe in god.

Ok, now I AGREE with Abiogenesis as a Scientific Fact. However, I am unsure of the theory I support in the realm of Abiogenesis.

I knew that before I even posted in this thread even though you were saying otherwise. It seemed that you were using an unconventional definition of abiogenesis and assigning undue ramifications to it.

I'm glad I could help clear it up for you.

Haven't you read up on Theistic Evolution? Even if you accept that life arrose on Earth via chemical reactions, that could still be the method that God used to create it. The only thing it does not fit with, is a literal and inerrant reading of the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:57 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Force, posted 09-28-2007 5:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 7:01 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 300 (424806)
09-28-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2007 9:29 AM


Catholic Scientist,

I actually consider my self a Theistic Evolutionist. I had some confusion about the idea of Abiogenesis and so now it is more clear to me thanks to the knowledge of the EVC forum/threads. I simply agree that Abiogenesis is Biological life from non Biological life. In reality Abiogenesis makes perfect sense and anyone who does not believe in it is crazy.

Edited by trossthree, : err


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2007 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 1:26 AM Force has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 213 of 300 (424907)
09-29-2007 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2007 9:29 AM


I don't know what 'WAG' means.

See Message 69

Edited by RAZD, : link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2007 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 214 of 300 (425020)
09-30-2007 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Force
09-28-2007 5:56 PM


A word of caution
I'd advise you not to get in the habit of accepting too many of the definitions you'll encounter here.

For example, you've been informed that jar is a 'christian'. EvC has its own definition, and Ringo is also a 'christian' by EvC standards.

Now read through this thread, and decide for yourself if anyone else would apply the term to them.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1890&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1890&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1890&m=1

I shan't post highlights. It speaks for itself. Or rather, they speak for themselves.

And as for 'abiogenesis'? A simple test to see whether or not they actually consider the definition valid would be to wait a few weeks and advance the notion that "God created life" is a legitimate hypothesis of abiogenesis. Shoot, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if one of them jumps silly straight away and says I'm not using the term correctly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Force, posted 09-28-2007 5:56 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 2:16 AM CTD has responded
 Message 216 by anglagard, posted 09-30-2007 2:18 AM CTD has responded
 Message 231 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM CTD has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 300 (425021)
09-30-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by CTD
09-30-2007 1:26 AM


Re: A word of caution
Now read through this thread, and decide for yourself if anyone else would apply the term to them.

Simple question, CTD. Why would anybody else get to decide? Who, in your mind, is the accrediting body for claims of being Christian? (The Earthly body, anyway.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 1:26 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 3:12 AM crashfrog has responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 216 of 300 (425022)
09-30-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by CTD
09-30-2007 1:26 AM


Re: A word of caution
CTD writes:

For example, you've been informed that jar is a 'christian'. EvC has its own definition, and Ringo is also a 'christian' by EvC standards.

Now read through this thread, and decide for yourself if anyone else would apply the term to them.

As an outsider (Spinoza Pantheist), I would most certainly apply the term Christian to jar, as to Ringo, well he has never indicated anything to me concerning his belief system other than the simple fact he is far more well versed in the Bible than essentially anyone else here (jar and arachnophilia being the next closest IMO, although there are several others almost as close) and that he actually points out when people are essentially 'full of crap' concerning their unsupported and irrational claims.

I would suggest that instead of acting as judge, jury, and executioner of anyone else's belief system you use some critical thinking to examine your own. Perhaps you could start by actually reading the Bible as opposed to telling everyone else what it says.

Perhaps then such discipline may lead to actually learning other viewpoints, science included. Once that is accomplished, you may actually begin to understand what others, including those in the Bible, are speaking of when they use the term 'blasphemy.'


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 1:26 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 3:32 AM anglagard has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 217 of 300 (425027)
09-30-2007 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by crashfrog
09-30-2007 2:16 AM


Simple answer
crashfrog
Simple question, CTD. Why would anybody else get to decide? Who, in your mind, is the accrediting body for claims of being Christian? (The Earthly body, anyway.)

The answer to the first question is the person writing or speaking most always decides what terms they're going to use. They can choose to use terms with specific meanings or vague terms. They can try to be accurate or deceptive.

You seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to throw words around as if they had absolutely no meaning whatsoever. If a term has no meaning, why use it in the first place?

To the second question, I'd say I'm not aware of any earthly entity I would recognize as having such authority. I personally defer to Scripture when using this term, but I know it is common practice to broaden the term to include some pretty unorthodox and obscure cults. However, it is not common practice to broaden the term to include every last person on the planet!

I maintain that nobody with any familiarity with the term could,after reading those posts, honestly apply it to the authors thereof. (Unless there was an indication that those views were no longer held.) Except, naturally if they invoked the private EvC definition... which is not a particularly honest thing to do.

People are going to write what they're going to write. And those who read must decide for themselves what's acceptable. I hope to assist any who would make a well-informed decision. I don't fear anyone reading that thread will consider me deceitful in the least. Some may be angry with me, and some may wish to dispute.

The term we're discussing is well-known. I would be a little curious to see what manner of definitions you guys would bring out.

You can try to make this a matter of my personal opinion. You'll fail if you do. This is obviously a matter of (im)properly employing a word in the English language.

Edited by CTD, : Spelling and punctuation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 2:16 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 4:05 AM CTD has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 218 of 300 (425030)
09-30-2007 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by anglagard
09-30-2007 2:18 AM


Re: A word of caution
anglagard
I would suggest that instead of acting as judge, jury, and executioner of anyone else's belief system you use some critical thinking to examine your own. Perhaps you could start by actually reading the Bible as opposed to telling everyone else what it says.

I would suggest instead of making false accusations, you read the thread.

When did I act as judge, jury, and executioner? I merely invited readers to observe that in order to apply the term 'christian' to persons who make posts of this type, one needs a peculiar definition of the term. Most peculiar. Where is the judging, jurying, & executing in that?

And I care not for any new definitions of 'blasphemy' you may care to offer. I'd have no choice but to conclude you'd use it about as accurately as you use other terms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by anglagard, posted 09-30-2007 2:18 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by anglagard, posted 09-30-2007 4:04 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 219 of 300 (425034)
09-30-2007 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by CTD
09-30-2007 3:32 AM


Re: A word of caution
This discussion is off topic here.

Please consider further discussion under the PNT "What is Blasphemy?" should it be promoted.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 3:32 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 300 (425035)
09-30-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by CTD
09-30-2007 3:12 AM


Re: Simple answer
You seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to throw words around as if they had absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

No, I just think that there's no merit in second-guessing someone's stated religious affiliation.

You're not talking about the definition of words. You're talking about membership in a group - Christianity. A "Christian" is anyone who is part of the religion of Christianity.

Who are you, exactly, to speak for Christianity and decide who is "in" and who is "out"? And if not you, then who in your mind is making that decision here on Earth, and on what authority do they do that?

However, it is not common practice to broaden the term to include every last person on the planet!

I wouldn't expect the term to include people who are adamant that they are not Christians, and I don't see where anybody has proposed such an extension of the term.

But the term certainly does include everyone who honestly claims to be a Christian, otherwise we're put in the ridiculous position of having to "qualify" people as Christian or not, and that's a mug's game. Who on Earth could you possibly be that you could make that decision for someone else?

I maintain that nobody with any familiarity with the term could,after reading those posts, honestly apply it to the authors thereof.

Except that they apply it to themselves. And they'd know, it seems to me. So on what basis do you claim to second-guess them? What authority do you have that is greater than theirs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 3:12 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM crashfrog has responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 221 of 300 (425146)
09-30-2007 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
09-30-2007 4:05 AM


Re: Simple answer
I did not dispute that they qualify for the EvC definition. Not for one minute. I do not intend to.

From what I've seen, evolutionists don't believe in fixity of language any more than they believe in fixity of species. I think this case demonstrates what I mean.

crashfrog

But the term certainly does include everyone who honestly claims to be a Christian, otherwise we're put in the ridiculous position of having to "qualify" people as Christian or not, and that's a mug's game.

I don't want to bicker about definitions. Your own definition would indicate that we must determine whether or not a claim is 'honest', and in these circumstances I don't think you want to go there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 4:05 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2007 6:52 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 6:53 PM CTD has responded
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2007 8:20 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 226 by iceage, posted 10-01-2007 12:48 AM CTD has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6618
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 222 of 300 (425147)
09-30-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
09-30-2007 6:42 PM


Ha ha ha ha ha!
Now don't this beat all! Wasting bandwidth arguing about definitions is a common tactic for those who have poor logic skills and who are ignorant of basic facts, but I can't quite remember another time when someone was wasting time and effort arguing about arguing about definitions!


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM CTD has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 300 (425148)
09-30-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
09-30-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Simple answer
Your own definition would indicate that we must determine whether or not a claim is 'honest', and in these circumstances I don't think you want to go there.

No, that's your definition, where a person has to meet some unspecified series of accrediting guidelines before they can claim the mantle of "Christian", or be open to charges (apparently) of "practicing Christianity without a license."

I'm just saying, when someone says "I'm a Christian", I don't know how I would contradict them, except if it was obvious that they weren't seriously making that claim - like they were obviously kidding because they were saying it in a funny voice, or I knew they thought Christianity was all a load of hokum, but we were trying to get into the free pancake breakfast or something.

Obviously, not everybody who says the words "I'm a Christian" intends to be taken seriously, and it's not hard to tell the difference. I'm not second-guessing them since they're not actually intending to make a claim of being Christian. But the people who are making that claim seriously, like the people you've been referring to in your posts - from what basis do you second-guess them? What body, in your view, acts as the Christian version of the Bar Association and decides who is really a Christian and who is just practicing the religion without a license?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 12:28 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 224 of 300 (425155)
09-30-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
09-30-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Simple answer
From what I've seen, evolutionists don't believe in fixity of language any more than they believe in fixity of species.

Well of course not, for the same reason: both species and languages are known to change over time. This is why my posts are not written in Middle English.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM CTD has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 225 of 300 (425177)
10-01-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
09-30-2007 6:53 PM


Oh, mine is it?
crashfrog
No, that's your definition,

How could this be? I cut & pasted directly from your post. The words are still there, every one of them. How can I accept credit for them? I cannot.

I guess now we're supposed to get bogged down defining 'your'? Puh-leeze!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 6:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019