Genetics and evolution

[blackumbrella]

In YOUR mind the Bible is a myth, but not to Christians or Jews. To us it is divine revelation from God, the creator. So for you to quote a dictionary's definition of a myth is ridiculous - SO WHAT? That doesn't explain the Bible, except to an atheist like YOU. That's like explaining the color blue by saying "blue is blue". It's merely what YOU want to believe/think. You can't make the Bible a myth just because you want it to be so.

You're pitiful!!!

will you marry me?

 

[CrimsonNan]

will you marry me?

TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CrimsonNan]

Umbrella

If I said what I wanted to to you, I'd be banned in a heartbeat! Besides 21 pages for this stupid subject is quite enough.

Good-bye TROLL!!! IDIOT!!!

 

[bamabake]

If I said what I wanted to to you, I'd be banned in a heartbeat! Besides 21 pages for this stupid subject is quite enough.

Good-bye TROLL!!! IDIOT!!!

When is enough?
I am still waiting for a massive list of evidence where one species arose from another. Bu before you go back to your silly doberman rot. example, which was really funny, although you say that species diverge and all of that, keep in mind that for evolution to exist species would have had to come from another. Remember we started with nothing. Zippo, nadda, no matter no time no nothing. One other I am waiting on is how something came from nothing. What caused it to go from nothing to something. Try and stick to these three simple questions.
1) the massive list of examples
2)How somthing can come from nothing
3)what caused nothing to become something.

 

[Rainbow Tider]

There you go again insulting Christians and other faiths who believe in God, the creator. It's always a put down with you, isn't it?

but beliving in christ is insulting to people who believe in allah or budda or the green pumpkinhead man. thats how religions work. we're right.you're wrong.

 

[CrimsonNan]

but beliving in christ is insulting to people who believe in allah or budda or the green pumpkinhead man. thats how religions work. we're right.you're wrong.

I SAID OTHER FAITHS. CAN YOU READ? Other faiths include Judaism, Islam, Buddah, etc. I didn't realize that I had to list them one by one. All believe in a creator. Umbrella insults ALL religions.

 

[IH8Orange]

but beliving in christ is insulting to people who believe in allah or budda or the green pumpkinhead man. thats how religions work. we're right.you're wrong.

That is not how religions "work". That is how selfish, domineering and intolerant people "work", far too many of whom are also religious. Anyone that is insulted by the fact that someone else believes in a different diety or dogma has a serious character flaw.

Too many of today's problems stem from the inability of people to let others believe or practice their beliefs as they wish. That goes for religious people as well as agnostic/atheists.

 

[blackumbrella]

If I said what I wanted to to you, I'd be banned in a heartbeat! Besides 21 pages for this stupid subject is quite enough.

Good-bye TROLL!!! IDIOT!!!

it's your sense of humor that's most endearing

 

[NYBamaFan]

Too many of today's problems stem from the inability of people to let others believe or practice their beliefs as they wish. That goes for religious people as well as agnostic/atheists.

While the civilized world can thank religion for its development, it can also curse religion as it's greatest bane. Men have killed more people in the name of religion than for any other cause. While virtually all of those lives were lost at the hands of leaders who used religion as an excuse to wage war, too many have been killed by religious leaders in an effort to wipe out "pagans" and/or convert them.

Yes, religion is a dangerous thing. Only something as powerful as God could be worth our struggle...

 

[bamabake]

That is not how religions "work". That is how selfish, domineering and intolerant people "work", far too many of whom are also religious. Anyone that is insulted by the fact that someone else believes in a different diety or dogma has a serious character flaw.

Too many of today's problems stem from the inability of people to let others believe or practice their beliefs as they wish. That goes for religious people as well as agnostic/atheists.

I certainly know what you are saying here. I do take isue with you on one point and that is tolerance. I see no inherent vurtue in tolerance per se. There cannot be more than one right and one wrong. Of course someone can be insulted by someone elses views, about anything. It doesnt mean they have a character flaw at all IMO.
I dont see anyone here on this board that thinks that anyone else cannot believe or practice their beliefs as they wish. There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance.
Most of todays problems do stem from this very issue, and that is moral relavence. That everyone is "right" and that everyone is "moral".
I do understand that a world looked at through the evolutionist eye will see morality as relative. That is the danger Becca refered to earlier. Where our culture takes a lie or a theory and creates TV shows and documentaries eta l that just treat evolution as a fact. All of this is and will keep coming home to roost as people of faith are looked at and defined as nuts and people that believe in nature and or man are looked at as moral relavist.

 

[IH8Orange]

I see no inherent vurtue in tolerance per se.

If you wish to be tolerated yourself, then there is "vurtue" in tolerance. People may not accept you, but you better hope that they tolerate you.

There cannot be more than one right and one wrong.

Actually, there can be many wrongs. Anything that isn't right(and that can entail an almost infinite number of beliefs or actions) is wrong.

 

[bamabake]

If you wish to be tolerated yourself, then there is "vurtue" in tolerance. People may not accept you, but you better hope that they tolerate you.



Actually, there can be many wrongs. Anything that isn't right(and that can entail an almost infinite number of beliefs or actions) is wrong.

I can accept someone without tolerating their views. Let me give you an example. I can adn will always say that homosexuality is wrong. I can make the case on many levels. I can accept a person that is homosexuals right to be in society, that doesnt mean I have to tolerate what they do or why. For me to say, " well this is his lifestyle more power to him" is to defy logic, reason, and what God says about it. At the same time I believe he has the right to be and do what he wants in this country (so long as it is legal).

 

[IH8Orange]

I can accept someone without tolerating their views. Let me give you an example. I can adn will always say that homosexuality is wrong. I can make the case on many levels. I can accept a person that is homosexuals right to be in society, that doesnt mean I have to tolerate what they do or why. For me to say, " well this is his lifestyle more power to him" is to defy logic, reason, and what God says about it. At the same time I believe he has the right to be and do what he wants in this country (so long as it is legal).

I think that semantics are getting in the way here.

The definition of tolerance, as I've always used it and heard it used, is to allow someone or something to exist. Tolerance infers that the object of that tolerance isn't favored by the one that is tolerating. Tolerating someone is generally meant to say that you would prefer that they weren't around, but you won't act to rid yourself of them.

Acceptance, on the other hand, generally, infers a favorable reception with little reservation. That is why Christians state that they accept, not tolerate, Jesus as their savior. I wouldn't want to be standing beside the guy that stated that he tolerates Jesus.

 

[bamabake]

I think that semantics are getting in the way here.

The definition of tolerance, as I've always used it and heard it used, is to allow someone or something to exist. Tolerance infers that the object of that tolerance isn't favored by the one that is tolerating. Tolerating someone is generally meant to say that you would prefer that they weren't around, but you won't act to rid yourself of them.

Acceptance, on the other hand, generally, infers a favorable reception with little reservation. That is why Christians state that they accept, not tolerate, Jesus as their savior. I wouldn't want to be standing beside the guy that stated that he tolerates Jesus.

I think, as I reread my last post, that I would have reversed the two words. I agree with what you said here. Would you say that people should just let their tolerance be enough , is it over the line in your mind to try and convince others that they may be wrong?

 

[IH8Orange]

Would you say that people should just let their tolerance be enough , is it over the line in your mind to try and convince others that they may be wrong?

There's nothing wrong with someone explaining why they think that they are right on an issue, as long as the other person welcomes the input. I don't think that anyone should try to force anyone else to accept their beliefs.

The latter method usually destroys any chance of bringing a person around to one's way of thinking anyway. An overbearing manner usually produces immediate resistance, even to normally cogent points.

 

[Rainbow Tider]

I SAID OTHER FAITHS. CAN YOU READ? Other faiths include Judaism, Islam, Buddah, etc. I didn't realize that I had to list them one by one. All believe in a creator. Umbrella insults ALL religions.

i can read. you don't have to be mean lady. and buddahism has no creator.

 

[bamabake]

There's nothing wrong with someone explaining why they think that they are right on an issue, as long as the other person welcomes the input. I don't think that anyone should try to force anyone else to accept their beliefs.

The latter method usually destroys any chance of bringing a person around to one's way of thinking anyway. An overbearing manner usually produces immediate resistance, even to normally cogent points.

Define force. I dont see how anyone could force their views on me no matter how hard. I like Paul of the bibles approach when he said to Ceasar " let us reason togather".

 

[GulfCoastTider]

When is enough?
I am still waiting for a massive list of evidence where one species arose from another. Bu before you go back to your silly doberman rot. example, which was really funny, although you say that species diverge and all of that, keep in mind that for evolution to exist species would have had to come from another. Remember we started with nothing. Zippo, nadda, no matter no time no nothing. One other I am waiting on is how something came from nothing. What caused it to go from nothing to something. Try and stick to these three simple questions.
1) the massive list of examples
2)How somthing can come from nothing
3)what caused nothing to become something.

Repeat after me: "FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD."

You've been sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA every time someone lists examples (like I've done with the Strep. pneumoniae and the sturgeon). As far as I'm concerned that question has been asked, answered, asked again, answered again. RTFT.

"One 'religion' is willing to learn. The other refuses to do so.

I don't think you could ever distill this debate into a single concept any better than the quote above. The only problem is, both sides wish to claim ownership of the willingness to learn.

Was it Scopes who refused to learn, or was it William Jennings Bryan?

 

[jthomas666]

Define force. I dont see how anyone could force their views on me no matter how hard. I like Paul of the bibles approach when he said to Ceasar " let us reason togather".

Of course, the other person famous for using that line is Vito Corleone. :biggrin2:

 

[Bamalaw92]

Of course, the other person famous for using that line is Vito Corleone. :biggrin2:

Actually it predates both. " 'Come now, let us reason together,' says the LORD . 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.'" Isaiah 1:18