Amazing people of amazing faith, who believe so very much!

bump.

I find this unnecessary. Buz is not game playing. The TOE is scientific, but reading this topic I would suggest the evolutionists are not scientific. Bias against Buz is plain to see. Also there are a lot of anti-Jesus' here, which again is nothing to do with the TOE, and is unscientific opinionated jargon.Stick in there Buz, your doing a good job, though many are against you, who can be against you?

Well, what would you call it if somebody insulted you or something you thought was important, and when you called them on it, they simply said "Oh, well, I really didn't mean it like that" when their original statement was quite unambiguous?When people try to escape undefensible positions by claiming they never held that position in the first place, even thought they obviously did, I call that game-playing.

It is possible Buzz is not consciously aware of what he is doing, but that's as far as I could go in agreeing with this. What about the evolutionists is not scientific? It would only be only bias if Buzz were not making obviously false claims. Try to make the case that Buzz never believed, for example, that the origin-based sciences like evolution are distinct from other sciences in being unproven (see Message 93, third paragraph from the end). You appear to be encouraging Buzz solely because of his similar outlook and not because his behavior is worthy of endorsement. In order to avoid admitting error he will argue the sky is green till the cows come home. People on both sides of the discussion make mistakes. There's no crime in making a mistake, we all do it. The problem here is one of compounding a mistake through endless denial, thereby needlessly hamstringing debate and preventing discussion from making any progress. Were it not for Buzz's behavior we might now be engaged in an engrossing discussion of the difference between empiricism and religious faith, but we're instead bogged down in an argument about what Buzz really meant when he started this thread.Buzz's approach is very successful. Unable to counter evolutionist positions in any meaningful way because he refuses to understand them, he instead stymies discussion through endless diversions.--Percy

Well, I didn't mean you in particular in this case. But some for example (this I have noticed in the past) - when discussing evolution come out with bizarre statements concerning Christ. Like if you believe he is the Messiah you are a "wishful thinker". How is that related to the TOE - which is scientific? Well, concerning what he is claiming. As far as I see he is saying being evolutionist requires faith,(from message 1 anyway) because of a lack of evidence. I say 'he's doing a good job' cos he's up against it, and I thought I would encourage him as not everyone agrees with the evolution mindset. But evolutionists here probably encourage one another at times. "Encourage one another" is a Biblical command - maybe I am guilty, but I don't do it often.I wont get further involved as I haven't read all of the thread. It just looked like Buz was on his lonesome and if he is saying the TOE is scientific but some evolutionists aren't, then I agree, that's all.P.s. The thread "example of science for Quetzal" discusses my opinion about the evidence and evolutionists more clearly. Ofcourse
not all evolutionists will be unscientific.

It isn't related to the TOE, but how is this issue related to this thread? Buzz said that being an evolutionist requires faith because evolution is an unproven theory. He denies he meant this, but he can't resume discussion along the lines you think he's arguing, namely insufficient evidence, because the opposite is so obviously the case. One needn't accept evolution's explanation for the fossil record to concede that it is indeed a large amount of evidence, and that it happens to dovetail neatly with the more recently discovered genetic evidence. And evolution is also consistent with the findings of other branches of science, like geology and astronomy.Then there's the definition of faith itself. In the case of conservative Christians, they believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the earth is young and man is God's penultimate creation despite any evidence to the contrary. Holding your beliefs in spite of evidence, that is faith. Holding your beliefs because of evidence, that is science.Many conservative Christians make the mistake of thinking they need evidence to support that which they accept upon faith, but if you hold your beliefs based upon evidence then what room is there for faith? Jesus praised most those who believed when there was no reason to believe. He held most dear those who had faith, not evidence.--Percy

I agree. 100%, that's my whole message to people!
Yet a lot of people call me irrational or wishful e.t.c. For having faith. You are right, I myself do not require evidence. Well, maybe it isn't. But it was not me who mentioned it first. Though I will understand if you missed the relevant posts concerning this, as it's a long topic, which I myself have not fully read. But it does happen a lot. Pretend to be me and re-read the posts. Imagine you have faith and people imply you're a wishful irrationalist. Please don't make me dig out the quotes at this time
of night.
Ofcourse - I know Jesus seeks faith, and belief ' All things are possible to those who believe '. - What do you think I've been preaching all these months. You obviously have not read "heaven prerequisites". -'I have admitted it is down to belief - not evidence, yet you waste my genuine message'From message 93, "heaven prerequisites..."[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-09-2004]

This's how you spin and wrongfully discredit your opponent, Percy. I explained fully to Crashfrog that what I am denying is that I have ever said TOE is religious. I haven't. I used the analogy of the steps and the word is commonly used in that vein. Didn't you read that? So where have I ever denied my position your first sentence above?? Which specific post, please? Again, you blatantly ignore my explanation to Crashfrog that my opening post was in the vein of [I have faith in those steps because they look sturdy and sound.] The amount of faith is relavent to how much evidence one considers to be valid. You people think you have enough evidence for a valid theory, so as in the vein of the step analogy, you have faith in what you believe to be true. I have little faith in what you believe because of the evidence which I've talked about extensively in these forums that supports what I consider to be Biblical truth as well as the evidence we see every day that order requires thought, not NS. It is disingenuous for you and Crashfrog to accuse me of deliberate deceit and falsehood (lying, if you will) when I'm only stating what I believe to be true. If you were half as fussy about tactics of your own people of idology as you have been to me in this thread, I'd not be so persistent in my own defense, but it is you people who've forced me to get entangled with this unpleasant confrontation. I've been willing to let it rest, but now, you draw me back into it for defence of this slander of my character and missjudgement of my intent.I have to agree with my good brother Mike that the biase shown here is telling. It appears from your attitude to me that you'd be most happy if I'd just leave, but I like it here and I go only when you say I go.

????? No that's not my contention or position in this thread, Mike, but I as you said you haven't read the whole thread so I understand the confusion as to that. Thanks very very much for your kind support. May God bless you for it.

Maybe he's ignoring it because it's a pretty transparent excuse.Tell me, Buz - if I started a thread that was called "Creationists are universally a$$holes", and then when creationists objected, I explained that by "a$$hole" I really meant "great human beings", how likely would you be to accept that as an explanation?Which of the two possibilities here is more likely, in your objective opinion:1) An otherwise intelligent person re-defines words at his own leisure and expectes us, via mental telepathy, to know what he's talking about; or2) A known wisea$$ makes a dig against the opposite team that turns out to be unsupportable and rather than retract or apologize, tries to make us believe that what he said wasn't really what he meant.You want us to believe number 1, I guess, but number 2 is obvious to the most causal observer. No! We trust in what the evidence suggests. No. When you say one thing, and then pretend that you meant another, you're one of a number of things. Calling you a liar is giving you the benefit of the doubt, as the alternative is that you literally lack comprehension of what you're saying. Buz, you slander yourself with your disingenuity. Honestly you're too old to blame others for your own mistakes, or to waste our time with word-games.

But this would mean you support Buzz because he shares your views about evolution, not because he shares your faith. My views are actually much closer to your own than are Buzz's. On a rational level I know there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for God, yet I fervently believe in God nonetheless. I believe in God out of faith, not evidence. Unfortunately, that's as far as our religious beliefs go in having anything in common, since I do not believe any of the world's religions can tell us anything of the real God.--Percy

Hi Buzz,I think Crashfrog's reply pretty much sums up my feelings. I see nothing to be gained by further addressing your insincere comments.Tell you what, I'll just start again by replying to your initial post: Ignoring the misconception about the evolution of sexual reproduction, the above contains a few fallacies:

• The "billions of unusual and highly unlikely steps" is merely your own characterization of evolution. The theory itself postulates no such requirement. One problem you face in characterizing the evolutionary process as extremely unlikely is that you can't identify any specific unlikely step. The only steps we postulate are reproduction, mutation and selection, all of which are extremely likely steps that you can observe in the lab and in the field any time you chose. Your misconceptions of sexual evolution are yet another example of your inability to do this, and it was brought out again in later discussion when you introduced your misconceptions about the evolution of the frog brain.
  ​
  Even in the case of abiogenesis, most evolutionists believe that when the proper conditions are met, probably water, organic chemicals, heat and time, that life is pretty much inevitable. It is postulated that such conditions may once have existed on Mars, and that is why we think we might find life there. And we think this because we believe life under the such circumstances is likely to occur.
  ​
• As someone else said, if we are wrong in thinking the evidence supports the likelihood of a natural origin for life, then we are mistaken, not faithful.
  ​
• Science is tentative, but we hold our views because of the evidence, not in spite of it. Holding your views in spite of the evidence is faith. The original evolutionists were faithful Christian clergymen/naturalists who started out believing in the Genesis account of Creation, but who gradually changed their views in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, most scientifically minded Christians of the period considered Genesis an approximate, not literal, guide to creation.
  ​
• Evolution is no different than chemistry or physics in taking an empirical approach and holding views tentatively.

--Percy

quote:

---

I have little faith in what you believe because of the evidence which I've talked about extensively in these forums that supports what I consider to be Biblical truth as well as the evidence we see every day that order requires thought, not NS.

---

Buz, you haven't presented any scientific evidence that supports your claims.I've asked you repeatedly for evidence, or links to evidence, but you've ignored me. Why is that?Basically, discussions with you go thusly:Buz makes a bald assertion.Someone asks buz to back up his claim with evidence.Buz either:1) Ignores request, or2) responds with personal anecdote, personal incredulity, personal opinion, or a Bible quote or supposed fulfilled prophecy.Others tell Buz that such made-up and/or vague personal statements do not constitute emperical, good-quality evidence. We explain that evidence needs to be reproducable and observable by anyone if it is to be accepted as indicative of natural phenomena.Buz ignores most of the poster's effort to explain, or cries "You all are biased against the supernatural that is emperically proven!"Poster denies any bias against the supernatural, and states that they simply want the details regarding buz's claim so they can examine them for themselves.Buz drops out of the discussion.This scenario has played out dozens of times over the last year, almost without variation.The problem you have, Buz, is that you always lose when we begin to get into the details of your claims. You seem to have not ever made the effort to research or do a lot of logical analysis of the implications of what you are claiming.This happens to many Creationist posters who visit this board, but two things usually happen, neither of which have happened to you. They either;1) Quickly realize that there is an awful lot of knowledge involved in the understanding of the science behind the ToE, and to understand the arguments, they had better get some background in the basics of Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, the Scientific Method, etc. They ask lots of questions and are genuinely interested in learning. These folks often make great members and are fun to discuss things with. They are alo rare.2) Quickly realize that there is an awful lot of knowledge involved in the understanding of the science behind the ToE, they become intimidated and threatened, and then run off in a huff, never to be heard from again, but not before saying something like, "I don't care what you say about genetic similarities and fossils, God loves me and the Bible is true and you are all going to hell!"Strangely, Buz, you fit into neither of these categories.You certainly do not seem to be interested in learning anything, or at least not learning anything which might cause you to change a single one of your preconceived ideas about anything at all.You seem intimidated and threatened by educated people and those working in scientific fields.These are typically characteristics of those who run away, but you have not run away completely. You do end up dropping out (effectively running away) of nearly every debate because you refuse to learn from those with a great deal more expertise and knowledge on the debate topics you choose to join.People become frustrated with you because you so clearly don't know what you are talking about, yet refuse to become more informed by those who are, in fact, experts in their fields.It's kind of like someone who has never driven a car but yet feels no qualms about arguing with an expert, MIT-educated mechanic about how an internal combustion engine works, even though the mechanic has tried, repeatedly and patiently, to explain the basics. It's as though you are insisting that invisible fairies are pushing the cylinders up and down, causing the crankshaft to turn and the wheels to move the car, and that you have emperical evidence that this occurs. Yet when the mechanic asks you to present this evidence, you point to the Holy Book of Invisible Fairies and recite a couple of passages which speak of invisible fairies pushing the pistons. When the mechanic tells you that this isn't good enough, you tell him he is biased and unscientific because he refuses to accept your "evidence" from the Book of Invisible Fairies.Can't you see how annoying and frustrating this would be after a while?

What we fail to realize is that we all have faith, for if God did not believe in us we wouldn't exist, but that may be a little hard to except, so I'll move on, though most may not be able to except what's coming either.Jesus told his disciples in Mark.11:22 to "Have faith in God". Well, literally translated that means to "have the faith of God", which would be perfect faith, because He can't fail if He's All-Powerful like people say they believe He is.He then goes on to say in verse 23, "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith". Also, keep in mind Mark.9:23, "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth".Now for the interpretation:
Jesus and his disciples were standing next to a literal mountain. He told them that if they believed, and did not doubt at all, then they could say to the mountain, Move, and it would uproot and move out into the sea. Think about this for a moment. He can't, after all, he is God, and, I'm ashamed to say that most Christians (of all people!) have limited not only Jesus' teaching on Faith, but almost all his teachings time, and time, and time again, and this is coming from a Christian!To put it mildly, Faith is everywhere. It's inside of us, and outside of us. It's what causes us to move, breath, walk, it's what's causing me to type. He said that if you can believe you can do anything, but if you doubt, then it will not be accomplished. He used one of the most extreme examples to get his point across, by illustration of the mountain, but let me ask you, if you didn't believe you read this interpretation that I've written, do you think you could be reading it?You see, James the Lord's brother wrote in his book about Abraham and how he was justified by works (which is another story altogether, but not really!), and he wrote in James.2:22, "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" I submit to you that only perfect faith can accomplish anything, because anything less than perfect (100%) faith, and you wouldn't exist. That's why Jesus told them to have the "Faith of God" (Mark.11:22), because when God believes, it happens instantaneously. Faith produces works (which is everything that you can see and more!, that's what works are!), not just from a christian perspective, but period. Faith applies to everyone who reads this, not just for Godly living. And you can't have works without faith, because faith IS the action that produces everything. Therefore, whatever comes as a result of your belief is the work of faith. In cause and effect, faith is always the cause of the effect, you don't see it, but it's the force that causes. And your faith is always being made perfect, it's positive reinforcement. You do something, therefore, you "know" (which is a word synonomous the term "believe") you can do it again.