You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What price religion?
- Thread starter spect8or
- Start date
Jem read these:
Evolution - fact and theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Examples of speciation...it has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Good list of misconceptions everyone should read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Dont think there is any evidence for Big changes via evolution?
TONS of stuff here. Talks about macroevolution and common decent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
peace
axeman
Evolution - fact and theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Examples of speciation...it has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Good list of misconceptions everyone should read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Dont think there is any evidence for Big changes via evolution?
TONS of stuff here. Talks about macroevolution and common decent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
peace
axeman
It's definitely true that I feel that Christianity delivered me from the occult.Quote from Turok:
Me:
>I ask because though it is technically possible to answer
>yes to all of the above questions and still not be in conflict
>with your statement (meaning you were in the occult before
>you were "saved"), a different impression could very much
>be derived.
Shoe:
>Not sure what you mean...
Well the statement "I was into the occult before I became a Christian" would lead some to believe that christianity delivered
........
Had your answer been "I was a player in the occult and one day learned about this heretofore unknown christian thing and ended up there". Then my hypo would have not been applicable.
JB
But I was not thinking "devil" or "demon" when I was into the occult if that's what you're getting at. I knew virtually nothing about that and my knowledge of Christianity and theology was almost nil.
The rest of your post I don't understand...
Quote from Turok:
>Yes, it is surprising actually. The supernatural and the
>spiritual is always surprising even when it meets and
>exceeds your expectations which is what I can
>definitely say about my belief system...
With the question in mind, this response says essentially...don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up".
JB
No, you missed my point I think. He asked if it was surprising to find what you are looking for. And I am saying that it genuinely was surprising.
Plus, just because you look for something good and find it doesn't mean the good is deceptive or that you deceived yourself.
To me that's a very jaded outlook on life. It could just mean I found the very thing I was looking for...
Quote from Turok:
>No, you missed my point I think.
Nope, got it
>It could just mean I found the very
>thing I was looking for...
Exactly. That is not uncommon as I see it.
JB
You're going to have to help me here, JB. I mean the response is just so weird to me. Anything with even the slightest hint of a spiritual or supernatural flavor to it and everyone immediately begins seeking a natural explanation to it.
"His longing created a mental state that led to a sense of euphoria..."
"His fear led him to a traumatic experience..."
"He must be mentally unstable..."
Many, many prominent and well-respected individuals have had spiritual experiences that they felt could not be explained naturally. Why do all these people all have to be wrong? Why make this assumption in the first place?
Can someone explain to me why the knee-jerk response to this? Why is it that naturalist find it so easy to believe in parallel universes and panspermia where there is no evidence whatsoever for either but the spiritual sends out a shock wave?
I guess what I'm asking is: what's the big deal?
axeman thank you for the links. I believe I am in this group:
"There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution."
His most relevant quote is " We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
This is not a proof to me. I would like to see the evidence.
Now applying legal standards to that first link. The author did not qualify himself as an expert or cite any proofs. On the relevent issue on he just made declarations with no cites or explanations. His testimony was useless.
I am now showering to go out drinking with my "heathen" friends. (My wife and kids are away. )
I will read your other links tommorow and if they are solid perhaps I will stand corrected but that fist link did not really present anything dispositive on the issue. I will say that I have read a great deal on this issue in the mainstream media and last I read there was no missing link or proof of a common ancestor with monkeys. Which is why I have taken the position I have. I have read a lot about the search for fossils and I know that many of the supposed early ancestor finds have been rejected by modern archelogists as anything but early man.
Spect8or has given me pause to go back and find out about the genalogies again. I know there are more scholarly explanations that hopefully will clear up the acknowledged difficulties he cites. But, I think the issue could be considered unresolved at the moment.
"There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution."
His most relevant quote is " We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
This is not a proof to me. I would like to see the evidence.
Now applying legal standards to that first link. The author did not qualify himself as an expert or cite any proofs. On the relevent issue on he just made declarations with no cites or explanations. His testimony was useless.
I am now showering to go out drinking with my "heathen" friends. (My wife and kids are away. )
I will read your other links tommorow and if they are solid perhaps I will stand corrected but that fist link did not really present anything dispositive on the issue. I will say that I have read a great deal on this issue in the mainstream media and last I read there was no missing link or proof of a common ancestor with monkeys. Which is why I have taken the position I have. I have read a lot about the search for fossils and I know that many of the supposed early ancestor finds have been rejected by modern archelogists as anything but early man.
Spect8or has given me pause to go back and find out about the genalogies again. I know there are more scholarly explanations that hopefully will clear up the acknowledged difficulties he cites. But, I think the issue could be considered unresolved at the moment.
>Anything with even the slightest hint of a spiritual
>or supernatural flavor to it and everyone immediately
>begins seeking a natural explanation to it.
There are many of us who hope this never stops (and you should hope it as well). If everyone had stopped doing this a while ago we would still believe that lightening was the anger of the gods.
>Many, many prominent and well-respected individuals
>have had spiritual experiences that they felt could not
>be explained naturally. Why do all these people all have
>to be wrong?
To you they don't, but for me I still subscribe to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for belief". Anything less than that is simple folly.
Earlier in the thread you scoffed at the notion of throwing out 'supernatural events not filmed in laboratory settings' but I ask you -- as there been ONE SINGLE supernatural event captured/replicated in a scientific/laboratory setting? Has it not been sincerely attempted repeatedly? Why would you think that they can't be replicated?
I can tell you that the first time one is captured or replicated in a scientific manner I will start to give notice to the ones reported elsewhere -- just like I'll travel to Scotland on a Nessie tour following some extraordinary evidence of her existence. Anything else is a just huge waste of my time.
>Why make this assumption in the first place?
Because considering the alternative I find it quite prudent. The alternative is to believe without proof and that is disturbing to me and dangerous to others.
>Why is it that naturalist find it so easy to believe in
>parallel universes and panspermia where there is no
>evidence whatsoever for either but the spiritual sends
>out a shock wave?
I find no more comfort in unfounded beliefs of naturalists than those of religious zealots(well, yes I do...the naturalists aren't killing each other)
>I guess what I'm asking is: what's the big deal?
There is no big deal if one doesn't care about all the death and destruction caused by religion vs religion nor about the historically provable clamp that religion has attempted(and still occasionally attempts) to put on science over the centuries -- wow, back on topic!!
Believe whatever you want to believe and don't impose it on others and there is no big deal at all.
JB
>or supernatural flavor to it and everyone immediately
>begins seeking a natural explanation to it.
There are many of us who hope this never stops (and you should hope it as well). If everyone had stopped doing this a while ago we would still believe that lightening was the anger of the gods.
>Many, many prominent and well-respected individuals
>have had spiritual experiences that they felt could not
>be explained naturally. Why do all these people all have
>to be wrong?
To you they don't, but for me I still subscribe to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for belief". Anything less than that is simple folly.
Earlier in the thread you scoffed at the notion of throwing out 'supernatural events not filmed in laboratory settings' but I ask you -- as there been ONE SINGLE supernatural event captured/replicated in a scientific/laboratory setting? Has it not been sincerely attempted repeatedly? Why would you think that they can't be replicated?
I can tell you that the first time one is captured or replicated in a scientific manner I will start to give notice to the ones reported elsewhere -- just like I'll travel to Scotland on a Nessie tour following some extraordinary evidence of her existence. Anything else is a just huge waste of my time.
>Why make this assumption in the first place?
Because considering the alternative I find it quite prudent. The alternative is to believe without proof and that is disturbing to me and dangerous to others.
>Why is it that naturalist find it so easy to believe in
>parallel universes and panspermia where there is no
>evidence whatsoever for either but the spiritual sends
>out a shock wave?
I find no more comfort in unfounded beliefs of naturalists than those of religious zealots(well, yes I do...the naturalists aren't killing each other)
>I guess what I'm asking is: what's the big deal?
There is no big deal if one doesn't care about all the death and destruction caused by religion vs religion nor about the historically provable clamp that religion has attempted(and still occasionally attempts) to put on science over the centuries -- wow, back on topic!!
Believe whatever you want to believe and don't impose it on others and there is no big deal at all.
JB