ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Oh come on... cant we all just get along? Rodney!! Is that you?
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Heres the deal- TSS has said on more than one occasion that I am an idiot. And I do know thats against the rules but I dont care, I like the debate. That aside. Its really hard to believe somebody when they constantly use the very same material from atheists. Think about it- Suppose you were debating somebody over the creation of the earth and life on it and this person was claiming to be christian but then started linking to videos made by atheists that mock christianity. Would you question them? I don't mind the debate. I do apologize for any hard words on my part. But it is simply not true that I link consistently to any one group. I've linked to Agnostics, Atheists, and Theists pretty randomly, with the slight nod to the Theists. It was in college that I discovered the Church. When I first went I started as an Agnostic Chemist and was good at it. I then took a look at Psychology and fell in love with it. I developed a fast friendship with a cute Mormon girl who introduced me to the Institute of Religion. We never got beyond friendship. Joined the Church, and I later married another cute Mormon girl. I haven't looked back once in the 43 years of my membership in the Church. I truly love my Savior, the Church, and my testimony of the Gospel. I have a passion for science. Of finding out how our world works satisfies a deep need within me. I feel as though my God requires of me to learn everything I can. To know for myself everything that God knows. That to me is the very definition of a Latter-day Saint. The sciences present no challenge to my faith, and facts are facts no matter where I find them. To me the sciences are simply the how of God doing his work. I would hate to think that my faith is so tender that after 43 years of active membership, in many positions of authority, it can't stand up to the detractors be they Agnostic, Atheistic, or Theist alike. Edited June 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Can someone find the modern human skull? Its the one full of mush.
Rob Osborn Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 I don't mind the debate. I do apologize for any hard words on my part. But it is simply not true that I link consistently to any one group. I've linked to Agnostics, Atheists, and Theists pretty randomly, with the slight nod to the Theists. It was in college that I discovered the Church. When I first went I started as an Agnostic Chemist and was good at it. I then took a look at Psychology and fell in love with it. I developed a fast friendship with a cute Mormon girl who introduced me to the Institute of Religion. We never got beyond friendship. Joined the Church, and I later married another cute Mormon girl. I haven't looked back once in the 43 years of my membership in the Church. I truly love my Savior, the Church, and my testimony of the Gospel. I have a passion for science. Of finding out how our world works satisfies a deep need within me. I feel as though my God requires of me to learn everything I can. To know for myself everything that God knows. That to me is the very definition of a Latter-day Saint. The sciences present no challenge to my faith, and facts are facts no matter where I find them. To me the sciences are simply the how of God doing his work. I would hate to think that my faith is so tender that after 43 years of active membership, in many positions of authority, it can't stand up to the detractors be they Agnostic, Atheistic, or Theist alike. Perhaps a little advice then- If you want to sell your case do not link to known atheist made videos. I am sure you could find somebody who is not hell bent against christianity to help sell your case.
Calm Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Tss gives as good as he takes. If you will watch closely he has a habit of using derisive remarks that are offensive at times. At least to me. But then who am I to complain Huh.The previous post was supposed to make it clear that neither of them have been impressing me in these threads. I really want to just say to them get a room so therest of us don't have to watch the dance anymore...even the rare dropping in accident is excruciating.ERR, misread your older post as one of Rob's,added a bit to it when I realized it wasn't. Edited June 14, 2014 by calmoriah
Calm Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Heres the deal- TSS has said on more than one occasion that I am an idiot. And I do know thats against the rules but I dont care, I like the debate. That aside. Its really hard to believe somebody when they constantly use the very same material from atheists. Think about it- Suppose you were debating somebody over the creation of the earth and life on it and this person was claiming to be christian but then started linking to videos made by atheists that mock christianity. Would you question them?That would depend on if they were saying...look at the science, ignore the mocking that is them being jerks or something else. I'm capable of judgi g the science apart from people's religious prejudices.
thesometimesaint Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Perhaps a little advice then-If you want to sell your case do not link to known atheist made videos. I am sure you could find somebody who is not hell bent against christianity to help sell your case. No can do. Brigham Young said: Truth is truth no matter where we find it.To discard any truth just because of its messenger seems rather counterproductive to me. Edited June 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 No can do. Brigham Young said: Truth is truth no matter where we find it.To discard any truth just because of its messenger seems rather counterproductive to me. Whose truth? According to whose interpretation of the data? Yours, mine, the milk mans?
thesometimesaint Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Whose truth? According to whose interpretation of the data? Yours, mine, the milk mans? I make it easy for you. Where the evidence leads. IE; If you needed open heart surgery would you call your local house plumber? After all it is just plumbing. So all interpretations are of equal value right?
Rob Osborn Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 No can do. Brigham Young said: Truth is truth no matter where we find it. To discard any truth just because of its messenger seems rather counterproductive to me. Even when it mocks?
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Whose truth? According to whose interpretation of the data? Yours, mine, the milk mans? What about the evidences for the solar system? are they just interpretations?
bcuzbcuz Posted June 14, 2014 Author Posted June 14, 2014 Whose truth? According to whose interpretation of the data? Yours, mine, the milk mans?Is truth really so fluid as you describe? Are facts so easily turned so that every opinion can find backing, and unqualified support merely by interpretation of those facts? If I go out to my car in the driveway one morning and find my car jacked up on blocks and all four tires missing, can I, with equal veracity argue that my tires were either: 1. stolen by thieves during the night, 2. removed from my vehicle by men from Mars ?I'm old enough to remember the rattle of milk bottles in their wire baskets that were delivered to our back porch several times a week. But now I no longer have a milkman. Do you still have a milkman? Is it really up to you or I or the milkman? Who can I trust now for the news and gossip that I can believe, since my milkman is long gone?
ERayR Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I make it easy for you. Where the evidence leads. IE; If you needed open heart surgery would you call your local house plumber? After all it is just plumbing. So all interpretations are of equal value right? You do have a talent for inane comparisons
ERayR Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Is truth really so fluid as you describe? Are facts so easily turned so that every opinion can find backing, and unqualified support merely by interpretation of those facts?If I go out to my car in the driveway one morning and find my car jacked up on blocks and all four tires missing, can I, with equal veracity argue that my tires were either: 1. stolen by thieves during the night, 2. removed from my vehicle by men from Mars ?I'm old enough to remember the rattle of milk bottles in their wire baskets that were delivered to our back porch several times a week. But now I no longer have a milkman. Do you still have a milkman? Is it really up to you or I or the milkman? Who can I trust now for the news and gossip that I can believe, since my milkman is long gone? What you accept as truth is determined by your own experiences and interpretation of the facts at hand. As long as you have what you consider to be rational grounds for what you believe it is your version of the truth. To the topic at hand, you and others find ample reason to accept macro-evolution as truth. I and others find ample, reasonable information to doubt that it is. Are you are you a kook for believing or am I a kook for not believing. I don't think of you as a kook, just a person with a different mix of facts than I have. I don't even know that if we were to sit down and I explained to you the fact pattern I derive my conclusins from whether you would see or understand where I am coming from. I don't really care all I want is for you to recognize that I base my conclusions on a reasonable but different fact pattern than the one you see. Finally your inane examples are irrelevant to the topic at hand and contribute nothing to the topic.
Rob Osborn Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 micro-evolution can only define changes and mutations within an organ and life form. It cannot properly account for how the organ itself came into existence or how the life form came into existence. If I thus have a hundred small micro-evolutionary mutations that effect the organ of heart, I still have a heart. There is no evidence that specific organs evolved from non organ material. Cells just do not randomly group together to create functional organs that are used to keep a species alive later on.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 15, 2014 Author Posted June 15, 2014 What you accept as truth is determined by your own experiences and interpretation of the facts at hand. As long as you have what you consider to be rational grounds for what you believe it is your version of the truth. To the topic at hand, you and others find ample reason to accept macro-evolution as truth. I and others find ample, reasonable information to doubt that it is. Are you are you a kook for believing or am I a kook for not believing. I don't think of you as a kook, just a person with a different mix of facts than I have. I don't even know that if we were to sit down and I explained to you the fact pattern I derive my conclusins from whether you would see or understand where I am coming from. I don't really care all I want is for you to recognize that I base my conclusions on a reasonable but different fact pattern than the one you see. Finally your inane examples are irrelevant to the topic at hand and contribute nothing to the topic.inane is my middle name.
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Even when it mocks? We think it's kinda cute when little children believe in talking snakes. At least I do. An adult who still believes it, and tries to convince other adults to believe in talking snakes deserves to be mocked.
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 You do have a talent for inane comparisons You're the one who thinks all evidence is equal.
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 micro-evolution can only define changes and mutations within an organ and life form. It cannot properly account for how the organ itself came into existence or how the life form came into existence. If I thus have a hundred small micro-evolutionary mutations that effect the organ of heart, I still have a heart. There is no evidence that specific organs evolved from non organ material. Cells just do not randomly group together to create functional organs that are used to keep a species alive later on. That makes absolutely no sense.
Rob Osborn Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 We think it's kinda cute when little children believe in talking snakes. At least I do. An adult who still believes it, and tries to convince other adults to believe in talking snakes deserves to be mocked. So, Moses to you must be a complete sitcom.
Rob Osborn Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 That makes absolutely no sense. macro-evolution makes absolutely no sense.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) macro-evolution makes absolutely no sense. Rob, you believe in Super Macro-Evolution. You believe that humans and animals come from the dust, in other words, you believe that the dust Evolved to animals and humans. You take Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 very literally. You believe that the dust Evolved to humans, because you believe that God literally and directly formed man out of the dust of the ground. Theistic Evolutionists believe that God directly formed man in the womb, for example, Jeremiah 1:5 Question for ID CreationistsWhat if you are wrong? Answer: I can't be wrong, and Macro-Evolution is false because there are many things that scientists don't know, and their interpretations are wrong because I read it in a Evangelical website, period. Question for Theistic EvolutionistsWhat if you are wrong?Answer: Show me the scientific evidence and I will change my mind. Edited June 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 You're the one who thinks all evidence is equal. Please show me where I said that.
Rob Osborn Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Rob, you believe in Super Macro-Evolution. You believe that humans and animals come from the dust, in other words, you believe that the dust Evolved to animals and humans. You take Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 very literally. You believe that the dust Evolved to humans, because you believe that God literally and directly formed man out of the dust of the ground. Theistic Evolutionists believe that God directly formed man in the womb, for example, Jeremiah 1:5 Question for ID Creationists What if you are wrong? Answer: I can't be wrong, and Macro-Evolution is false because there are many things that scientists don't know, and their interpretations are wrong because I read it in a Evangelical website, period. Question for Theistic Evolutionists What if you are wrong? Answer: Show me the scientific evidence and I will change my mind. I am made from the dust of the earth. You are made from the dust of the earth. My pet cat is made from the dust of the earth. The flower I planted last week is made from the dust of the earth. Scientifically we can prove how each one of us is made from the dust of the earth (we come from the matter of the earth). All the evidence there is points to an intelligent creation. Its all scientific.
Recommended Posts