Johnnie Cake Posted July 21, 2016 Author Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, CountryBoy said: CFR Hold on while I go bang my head on a brick wall...several times... Here's your CFR now go do your home work https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne-ebook/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469140045&sr=8-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true and http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122 and https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Nicholas-H-Barton/dp/0879696842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469141511&sr=8-1&keywords=evolution+barton Edited July 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Unfortunately, we do not know that it did happen, and we are unable to demonstrate it -- as science requires. Most scientists are moving in the direction of transmission, as with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Makes more scientific sense. It's called panspermia, it is just a guess. 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Everyone must follow his own conscience and belief as best he can. What about open minded agnostics? Why is faith in Theism better than Cryonics? 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, what is the ultimate nature of reality? I have no idea. Edited July 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Robert F. Smith Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It's called panspermia, it is just a guess. Yes, transmission is also called panspermia. What about open minded agnostics? Why is faith in Theism better than Cryonics? Not better, just different. One must follow his own conscience or belief.. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not better, just different. One must follow his own conscience or belief.. What about conscience, belief, and rational thinking? 32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: One must follow his own conscience or belief Okay, please tell me why Theism is better than open minded Agnosticism?
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: please tell me why Theism is better than open minded Agnosticism? Because for the believer, God said that faith is better than doubt. That is a key part of our religion. Faith is the path to salvation and doubt is labelled as a false path. Edited July 22, 2016 by JLHPROF
Robert F. Smith Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 23 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: What about conscience, belief, and rational thinking? All good. Okay, please tell me why Theism is better than open minded Agnosticism? As I just said to you: " Not better, just different. One must follow his own conscience or belief."
waveslider Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: That is a "No True Scotsman" argument. Prove your hypothesis. No one has said we have all the facts. That is what makes science tentative. As new facts come along our understanding changes. My view isn't a hypothesis, but rather true personal experience. I have had very real answers. I don't need to have it quantified into science before I believe it, since I already know for myself directly from the source . It's kind of like the first time someone sees a new species that relatively few people have ever seen before, but so far all were unable to capture it, or get an image of it. He knows it's real and it doesn't matter that it can't be proven to others at the moment, he won't stop believing it just because others doubt it. It is only a matter of time before the truth gets revealed eventually anyway. The same goes with my knowledge of God, even if you don't believe it and I can't prove it, the truth will get revealed eventually. After all we are on a Mormon site, not a science site, so why do I need to prove it? Like I said, "I don't mind following true religion." I don't call religion science, but I do call science imperfect. It will remain so unless somehow all the facts come in and there are no new facts to discover, or understand. Then it is no longer science, but omniscience. I choose to follow omniscience, ie God, not man and imperfect science. I don't claim to be Scottish anyway, so I don't care if I am no true Scotsman, or not. I see people who don't have to take God out of science, to believe in science. That's why I asked what it is called if you have to take God our of science, to make it work?, after you said: On 7/20/2016 at 11:25 AM, waveslider said: If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work. It is no longer science, but it is religion. Edited July 22, 2016 by waveslider missed a word
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: As I just said to you: " Not better, just different. One must follow his own conscience or belief." but open minded agnosticism is not a belief. 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Because for the believer, God said that faith is better than doubt. That is a key part of our religion. Faith is the path to salvation and doubt is labelled as a false path. It is so easy to say all of that when you are 100% convinced
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 23 hours ago, Darren10 said: Sir, no science is a "fact". They are, instead, conclusions. Presenting science as "fact" is the most unscientific thing you can do to science. Incorrect. Science is the study of facts. The explanation of that fact is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is simply the best explanation we have so far for any given observation. IE; Our sun is a fact. The explanation of that fact is that our sun thermonulearly combines Hydrogen to make Helium. Edited July 22, 2016 by thesometimesaint
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It is so easy to say all of that when you are 100% convinced Not really. Nobody said faith was the easier path. But Christ is clear. Faith is the better path than doubt.
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 20 hours ago, snowflake said: And your point? Is this an ad-hominem attack or are you going to address his problems with evolutionism? No it is not. It is his idea's that I object to. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Level of support for evolution. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Evolutionism. Evolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution. The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Not really. Nobody said faith was the easier path. Life is easier when you are convinced that there is a loving Heavenly Father. It is not easy to be an open minded agnostic, to think of the possibility that there is no life after death is not cool. It is far easier to be a devout Christian, I was happier when I was convinced. "I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking" - Carl Sagan Edited July 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Robert F. Smith Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: but open minded agnosticism is not a belief. ....................................................................... Maybe you have a hard time in reading comprehension: As I said, for the third time: "Not better, just different. One must follow his own conscience or belief." Try a little harder, Skeptic. My sentence does in no way suggest that agnosticism is a belief (although it is a belief), but leaves it up to you to decide to apply your conscience or your belief to the question. Either, or. Hope you know what those words mean.
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 9 hours ago, waveslider said: My view isn't a hypothesis, but rather true personal experience. I have had very real answers. I don't need to have it quantified into science before I believe it, since I already know for myself directly from the source . It's kind of like the first time someone sees a new species that relatively few people have ever seen before, but so far all were unable to capture it, or get an image of it. He knows it's real and it doesn't matter that it can't be proven to others at the moment, he won't stop believing it just because others doubt it. It is only a matter of time before the truth gets revealed eventually anyway. The same goes with my knowledge of God, even if you don't believe it and I can't prove it, the truth will get revealed eventually. After all we are on a Mormon site, not a science site, so why do I need to prove it? Like I said, "I don't mind following true religion." I don't call religion science, but I do call science imperfect. It will remain so unless somehow all the facts come in and there are no new facts to discover, or understand. Then it is no longer science, but omniscience. I choose to follow omniscience, ie God, not man and imperfect science. I don't claim to be Scottish anyway, so I don't care if I am no true Scotsman, or not. I see people who don't have to take God out of science, to believe in science. That's why I asked what it is called if you have to take God our of science, to make it work?, after you said: Your personal experience is valid to anyone but you. Believe whatever you want. Appeals to God are not science. In science we need more than just seeing something. If I claim to have seen a T-Rex walking down the street. I have to produce more evidence than I saw it. SEE Sure. If, and when, Jesus comes back and demonstrates to the world that he rode around on dinosaurs. We'll have to accept it. Until then we need more evidence. BTW. The Flintstones isn't a documentary. I don't mind the followers of any religion, as long as they treat people fairly. Personally I'm a long time convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.. Science has never claimed to be perfect. That is your Straw-Man Argument. Please look up what a "No True Scotsman Argument is. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Science doesn't care what anyone believes. Only what can be demonstrated. I don't "believe" in science. I'm a constained to accept its conclusions until more contrary evidence is demonstrated.
stemelbow Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 On 7/18/2016 at 10:09 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Yeah I know in another post I said good bye but I have no where else to share this. Today my daughter stopped by to share some amazing news. She has evidently traced my ancestry back to the very first human beings, Adam & Eve 6,000 years ago. She was effervescent when she told my wife and I the great news. Knowing that nearing 3% of my DNA is descended from my Neanderthal ancestors I asked her if she was going to continue her research so that our 40,000 year old Neanderthal ancestors might also receive their blessings? She looked at me like I had two heads and said there weren't any humans before Adam and Eve. I feel that I've failed as a father. Why are so many so afraid of knowing the truth It's quite likely your daughter tapped into a line, dragged through nobility in the "dark ages" after which someone created a link to a biblical figure, linking to other biblical figures, assuming the line to Adam. So not only is your daughter excited about finding a link to the first human couple, which could lead to disappointment when she finds humans existed before 6000 years ago, but it's probably just a line kind of made up and pieced together for funsies by someone else. But we've been told it's likely we're all related to Charlemagne anyway. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty/ I mean come on. This world was never so populated as it is today.
waveslider Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I don't "believe" in science. I'm a constained to accept its conclusions until more contrary evidence is demonstrated. I stand corrected, sorry about that. You don't believe in science, but instead believe that you are, " constained to accept its conclusions until more contrary evidence is demonstrated." I will believe what I want and you can still believe this. It matters not to me. Neither belief affects the truth, from remaining the truth, no matter what anyone believes either way.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Maybe you have a hard time in reading comprehension: As I said, for the third time: "Not better, just different. One must follow his own conscience or belief." So how can an agnostic follow his belief when he doesn't have a belief? That is what I am asking you about. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: although it is a belief It is not, you can't possibly follow open minded agnosticism, it is neutral
Robert F. Smith Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: So how can an agnostic follow his belief when he doesn't have a belief? That is what I am asking you about. You need to look up "or" in the dictionary, and then cogitate on the fact that I said "conscience or belief." You need to learn how to read ordinary English sentences, Skeptic. Your responses are regularly non sequiturs, indicating that you have no idea what I have said. It is not, you can't possibly follow open minded agnosticism, it is neutral You can self-define anything to be what it is not, if you wish, but you will find no scholar who shares your imaginary concoction.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You need to look up "or" in the dictionary, and then cogitate on the fact that I said "conscience or belief. My goodness! Agnosticism is not conscience. Not a belief. Not conscience. You statement doesn't apply to agnosticism. Do agnostics have beliefs and conscience, yes they do, but not related to their agnosticism. So what do agnostics follow? 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You can self-define anything to be what it is not Agnostic - (In a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles_americano/agnostic Edited July 23, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Robert F. Smith Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: My goodness! Agnosticism is not conscience. Not a belief. Not conscience. You statement doesn't apply to agnosticism. Do agnostics have beliefs and conscience, yes they do, but not related to their agnosticism. You need to think real hard, Skeptic: What does it mean for someone to say that everyone may follow his conscience or belief? It means that they are free to think whatever they want. Freedom to take any point of view they wish, whatever that POV might be. It does not say that agnosticism is a belief or conscience, but rather that your choice to be an agnostic is your free choice, and I happen to believe in free choice. Through your complete ignorance of the English language, you have taken a simple statement and converted it into something it is not. Congratulations. So what do agnostics follow? Agnostic - (In a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles_americano/agnostic I would recommend a professional source, such as http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#3 (SEP/ the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy), which makes it clear to me that agnosticsm is a belief in not having either faith or belief in something (God, for example). In other words, it is an explanatory system for not doing either, but it is nonetheless a belief system like any other. You may find that annoying, but that should not affect the analysis. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 17 hours ago, waveslider said: I stand corrected, sorry about that. You don't believe in science, but instead believe that you are, " constained to accept its conclusions until more contrary evidence is demonstrated." I will believe what I want and you can still believe this. It matters not to me. Neither belief affects the truth, from remaining the truth, no matter what anyone believes either way. It is your presenting of your beliefs as facts that is at issue. SEE
waveslider Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: It is your presenting of your beliefs as facts that is at issue. SEE So are facts not facts until science proves that they are? Or are they only undiscovered facts until they are proven to the masses? What I know is factual and I know these things to be because of what I have experienced first hand. Just because I can't prove those experiences to those who haven't had such experiences doesn't negate the reality of those experiences. I can't even find words in language that describes what I have actually experienced, in order to properly convey what truly happened. That all said. I can agree to disagree with you. You can believe whatever you want to believe and I can believe what it is I know, and there is no need to prove it to others. These people in your video can believe what they want as well. The truth always comes out in the end, even if it is highly unpopular with most people to know the truth.
bluebell Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 I was looking thru family search's "relative finder" and discovered I'm related to a lot of the European royalty (which isn't a surprise since they are all related to each other). Charlemagne is my 44th great grandfather! If anyone has their genealogy already on family search you should check it out, it's a lot of fun! I'm cousins with all 12 apostles (of varying degrees and numbers removed) and had no idea! To the OP-I didn't know it was even possible to trace a genealogy back to Adam. Seems fishy. Most people don't really get past the dark ages because no one really kept records before that.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: but rather that your choice to be an agnostic is your free choice, and I happen to believe in free choice or it can also mean you don't have a position yet, or that you haven't made a decision. I myself haven't made a decision. Please don't tell me that it is my decision that I haven't made a decision. 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You need to think real hard, Skeptic: What does it mean for someone to say that everyone may follow his conscience or belief? It means that they are free to think whatever they want. Freedom to take any point of view they wish, whatever that POV might be I agree with that, but let's go back, you said "Yes, what is the ultimate nature of reality?...Everyone must follow his own conscience and belief as best he can. No testimony is transferable." We are talking about religion and the ultimate nature of reality, agnostics don't have an opinion, POV, belief, conscience about any of that. Agnostics don't know, agnostics simply don't think anything. 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I would recommend a professional source, Please don't tell me the Oxford Dictionary is not a reliable source. There are many types of Agnostics. Quote No testimony is transferable How do you know your testimony is not the result of patternicity? confirmation bias? the Improbability principle? false memory? hallucination? You say you are a fan of Carl Sagan, what would you tell him? Edited July 24, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
The Nehor Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 On 7/18/2016 at 11:09 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Yeah I know in another post I said good bye but I have no where else to share this. Today my daughter stopped by to share some amazing news. She has evidently traced my ancestry back to the very first human beings, Adam & Eve 6,000 years ago. She was effervescent when she told my wife and I the great news. Knowing that nearing 3% of my DNA is descended from my Neanderthal ancestors I asked her if she was going to continue her research so that our 40,000 year old Neanderthal ancestors might also receive their blessings? She looked at me like I had two heads and said there weren't any humans before Adam and Eve. I feel that I've failed as a father. Why are so many so afraid of knowing the truth Maybe you should stop failing as a father?
Recommended Posts