Question about evolution....

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Ummm,

They evolved from something else? :p

Terra

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8276747].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

From a strictly scientific/philosophic point of view.

I've never heard of how Darwin addresses dinosaurs.
Where do they fit in Darwins theory?

Since the first dinosaur bones were discovered (or at least recognized as fossilized bones) during his lifetime, there wasn't much known about them yet, so they probably didn't really have much impact on his thinking since they didn't have much to go on about the animals yet.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277910].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Since the first dinosaur bones were discovered (or at least recognized as fossilized bones) during his lifetime, there wasn't much known about them yet

This.

Dinosaurs were about the only kind of life Darwin didn't at some point study in detail, but his theories were enormously useful toward the interpretation of the dinosaur fossils gradually discovered all over the place in the late 19th Century. He did, later in his life (after the publication of his famous works) make some comments about dinosaurs in the general context of how partial and difficult to interpret the fossil evidence was, at that time.

This man has written a lot about this subject.

It's still a slightly controversial subject: there are still (dwindling numbers of) people - not scientists! - who claim that humans and dinosaurs were actually alive at the same time. I think they and their friends probably hang out here.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279406].message }}

GarrieWilson

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

It's still a slightly controversial subject: there are still (dwindling numbers of) people - not scientists! - who claim that humans and dinosaurs were actually alive at the same time. I think they and their friends probably hang out here.

I have a friend who thinks that. He is actually very intelligent but looks to one belief more than others on this topic.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279882].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

I have a find who thinks that. He is actually very intelligent but looks to one belief more than others on this topic.

When I was growing up, my family was very religious. I was taught that the dinosaurs were all killed in Noah's flood. In my early teens, I started questioning the evidence of that, and was reprimanded.

My "pre-occupation with logic" has caused a major rift in my family, that has never healed.

My brother-in-law, who is very intelligent, believes that dinosaurs lived with us.
Beliefs are impossible to penetrate, although I've given it a shot a couple of times.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282521].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

When I was growing up, my family was very religious. I was taught that the dinosaurs were all killed in Noah's flood. In my early teens, I started questioning the evidence of that, and was reprimanded.

My "pre-occupation with logic" has caused a major rift in my family, that has never healed.

My brother-in-law, who is very intelligent, believes that dinosaurs lived with us.
Beliefs are impossible to penetrate, although I've given it a shot a couple of times.

It must sometimes be lonely for you having a high IQ.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282545].message }}

Claude Whitacre 13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

It must sometimes be lonely for you having a high IQ.

Is that a joke?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282689].message }}
- thunderbird 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  Is that a joke?
  
  Not a joke, but I can see how it could look that way.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Project HERE.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282753].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

It must sometimes be lonely for you having a high IQ.

When I was in high school, I was given a battery of tests because my teachers thought I may have a learning disability. I wasn't social, didn't seek peer approval, didn't show respect for my teachers (although I just thought of it as "questioning")

So I took a very involved aptitude and IQ test. In every area, I was slightly below normal. an IQ of 100 is perfectly average for the sample tested.

My scores were in the 90-95 range...dull normal.

But in the area of seeing cause and effect, seeing patterns, fitting geometric shapes in sequence, and knowing what fits and what doesn't...I got a score of 180. The counselor told my parents that it was the highest score in that part of the test, ever recorded in my school's history. My Dad chose to believe that I was a genius (he was wrong)...and my Mother chose to believe that I was possessed by the devil. That's not a joke, then or now. (My Mom was wrong too, by the way)

So I trained myself to think using the one aptitude I have, and try to use it in everything. Sometimes very successfully, sometimes not.

This helps enormously in selling, and learning selling skills. It also helped me in learning Kung Fu for many years. Certain science subjects come easily.

But when I talk to real geniuses (yes, I know a couple), and we talk outside my very narrow fields of expertise? I feel like an idiot. More than most.

I have an unceasing desire to know.
If I watch a magic trick, I can't enjoy the trick. But now I have to know how it is done. Every idea I get (or hear), I have to break it down to find flaws in reasoning, gaps in knowledge..... it's a compulsion. And it's not all that fun to watch....or read about, I'm guessing.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282908].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

When I was in high school, I was given a battery of tests because my teachers thought I may have a learning disability. I wasn't social, didn't seek peer approval, didn't show respect for my teachers (although I just thought of it as "questioning")

So I took a very involved aptitude and IQ test. In every area, I was slightly below normal. an IQ of 100 is perfectly average for the sample tested.

My scores were in the 90-95 range...dull normal.

But in the area of seeing cause and effect, seeing patterns, fitting geometric shapes in sequence, and knowing what fits and what doesn't...I got a score of 180.

So I trained myself to think using the one aptitude I have, and try to use it in everything. Sometimes very successfully, sometimes not.

This helps enormously in selling, and learning selling skills. It also helped me in learning Kung Fu for many years. Certain science subjects come easily.

But when I talk to real geniuses (yes, I know a couple), and we talk outside my very narrow fields of expertise? I feel like an idiot. More than most.

I have an unceasing desire to know.
If I watch a magic trick, I can't enjoy the trick. But now I have to know how it is done. Every idea I get (or hear), I have to break it down to find flaws in reasoning, gaps in knowledge..... it's a compulsion. And it's not all that fun to watch....or read about, I'm guessing.

I focus a lot on subtext, reading what isn't said but indirectly implied. Comes from reading lots of screenplays in the past (which, generally, is a uniquely tortuous experience). I find that your responses have a lot of subtext to them that implies great intelligence (like Spock lol).

BTW I highly recommend 'The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius' by Kristine Barnett, about her experiences raising her autistic son who experts said would probably never even learn to tie his shoes, but turned out to be a genius I think you might like it. She talks of how a single strength that is developed can have the effect of lifting up other areas of cognition, sort of like a hot air balloon lifting up what's beneath it. It is a great read, both in describing human stories and introducing compelling concepts.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282965].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

When I was in high school, I was given a battery of tests because my teachers thought I may have a learning disability. I wasn't social, didn't seek peer approval, didn't show respect for my teachers (although I just thought of it as "questioning")

So I took a very involved aptitude and IQ test. In every area, I was slightly below normal. an IQ of 100 is perfectly average for the sample tested.

My scores were in the 90-95 range...dull normal.

But in the area of seeing cause and effect, seeing patterns, fitting geometric shapes in sequence, and knowing what fits and what doesn't...I got a score of 180.

So I trained myself to think using the one aptitude I have, and try to use it in everything. Sometimes very successfully, sometimes not.

This helps enormously in selling, and learning selling skills. It also helped me in learning Kung Fu for many years. Certain science subjects come easily.

But when I talk to real geniuses (yes, I know a couple), and we talk outside my very narrow fields of expertise? I feel like an idiot. More than most.

I have an unceasing desire to know.
If I watch a magic trick, I can't enjoy the trick. But now I have to know how it is done. Every idea I get (or hear), I have to break it down to find flaws in reasoning, gaps in knowledge..... it's a compulsion. And it's not all that fun to watch....or read about, I'm guessing.

Claude - um...........that's how you are SUPPOSED to work it. You take your strong fields and learn to apply them. There are a few areas that I bomb out as a drooler and a few areas that I'm just way out there. This applies to almost everyone. The areas that you are way out there will determine how much else you can fit into your sphere of genius.

A lot of people that are just plain stupid - aren't really all as stupid as we (or they) think. They got into an educational system that didn't find and direct their area of cognitive strength. American schools aren't really set up for it. I was told I was a moron when it came to math. Flunked Algebra...twice. Had to take general math in summer school to graduate. Then in college, my logic professor and astronomy professor pulled me into a room with a school counselor and tried to force me into the physics program. I freaked out to the Nth power. After being told for over 20 years I had no math skills, I was suddenly being told that I could be a wizard with some intensive study.

Anyway - it caused me so much cognitive dissonance that I actually got physically ill from it for a month or two. Now it just infuriates me that I was subjected to that kind of slip programming when I was a kid. Now I realize what a huge loss it was to not be able to consider the field of physics -- I find quantum physics a charge and a half. I can do the logical positioning, but can't do the math necessary to back up anything I think makes sense to the way things work.

I'd at this point love to say "THANKS, NOT" to my HS high school teacher that continually repeated the phrase "this stuff is so micky mouse, what's wrong with you that you don't get it?" to me. My adult reply -- Listen Goober, I DID get it........you just didn't know from crap to shinola how to teach me. Dumbass.

Ah.........that felt good.

Never be ashamed of your intelligence. Never be embarrassed about the areas that you are running a spark plug short. You can always find someone who can explain those areas to you in terms that your brain will assimilate if you really need the info.

As far as living with dinosaurs -- we still do. We have turtles and alligators, lizards, birds, etc. Thank GOD they have downsized a tad since their hayday.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283131].message }}

Claude Whitacre 13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

As far as living with dinosaurs -- we still do. We have turtles and alligators, lizards, birds, etc. Thank GOD they have downsized a tad since their hayday.

Touche, Young lady!
- Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284106].message }}

ThomM

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

When I was growing up, my family was very religious. I was taught that the dinosaurs were all killed in Noah's flood. In my early teens, I started questioning the evidence of that, and was reprimanded.

My "pre-occupation with logic" has caused a major rift in my family, that has never healed.

My brother-in-law, who is very intelligent, believes that dinosaurs lived with us.
Beliefs are impossible to penetrate, although I've given it a shot a couple of times.

I think one of the problems is most religious types cherry pick what they want to believe or just take things in the bible at face value.
For example there is one verse that says God won't leave any evidence of his existence so people will believe based on faith. That verse (to me) allows Christians to except things like evolution, physics, etc. as Gods work. Go back a couple thousand years and people didn't have a clue about evolution or physics so they needed a way to explain those things that made sense to them at that time. Why today they still except those two thousand year old ideas instead of excepting that God would be smart enough to create evolution and physics is beyond me.
If it wasn't for dinosaurs and the vegetation of that period would we still have oil? If there wasn't an explanation for where oil came from would there be a Made by God sticker on it? If the sticker existed, faith wouldn't.

Sorry to go on a religious rant but I wanted to show you can still look at things with logic and still believe in a God.

Thanks
4 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282890].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Sorry to go on a religious rant but I wanted to show you can still look at things with logic and still believe in a God.

Thom; I've given that very question quite a lot of study and thought. I hope this helps.

Yes. I personally know many very intelligent people, who are highly educated..far smarter than I am...who have strong religious beliefs.

The part of the brain that processes rational thought isn't the same part that holds religious beliefs. It's why you can be brilliant, but love someone and make huge mistakes in judgement concerning that person. The rational part of the brain isn't involved.

Using logic and reason never work when discussing religion, because it's not a subject that is about logic and reason. Can you talk about love logically? Art?
Poetry? No, because they aren't subjects that are understood with the rational part of the brain.

At one time religion was actually our science. What causes a breeze? Lightening? Floods? A solar eclipse?

If you didn't have instruments or an understanding of laws of physics...how would you explain these things? Doesn't a breeze at your back feel like a loving hand, helping you along?

You would create gods...legends...in an attempt to understand your world. They would be passed down, generation to generation. They would be stories, then legends, then religion, then gospel.

As far as religious beliefs today? I'm sorry, my friend....mine are missing.
I simply can't see what some people see, or feel what some people feel.
I can tell you this though, I envy people of faith. I see the comfort that it brings. It just isn't a part of me.

When you see the Sun moving across the sky....
If you ask "Who is moving the Sun?"...you are creating or studying religion.
If you ask "Why is the Sun moving across the sky?" you are creating philosophy.
If you ask "How is the Sun moving across the sky?", you are a scientist.

That just popped into my head.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283019].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The part of the brain that processes rational thought isn't the same part that holds religious beliefs.

This. This is simply factual. Long suspected and now unambiguously proven, after studies (including by positron emission tomography) on many thousands of patients in countless different countries. And ... the widely observed but never-well-understood increased incidence of temporal lobe epilepsy among the devoutly religious has also been more or less accounted for, in the same and in closely related research, also now on many thousands of patients in countless different countries - which is interesting.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283057].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

This. This is simply factual. Long suspected and now unambiguously proven. And ... the widely observed but never-well-understood increased incidence of temporal lobe epilepsy among the devoutly religious has also been more or less accounted for, in the same and in closely related research, which is interesting.

I don't mean to nitpick at all, Lexy, but there is a huge difference between being devoutly religious and being a person of faith.

I know a lot of people who devoutly go through rituals religiously everyday that are linked to certain "religions", but don't have faith in God, only in performing those rituals hoping it will lead them to God.

I hope you understand the distinction in that.

I'm not religious at all, but I am a woman of faith.

I have no idea in which example the article you linked to views religion, but only wanted to point out that difference.

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283089].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

I don't mean to nitpick at all, Lexy, but there is a huge difference between being devoutly religious and being a person of faith.

I know a lot of people who devoutly go through rituals religiously everyday that are linked to certain "religions", but don't have faith in God, only in performing those rituals hoping it will lead them to God.

I hope you understand the distinction in that.

Yes ... indeed, of course ... (sorry, did not mean to imply otherwise!).

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283228].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

This. This is simply factual. Long suspected and now unambiguously proven. And ... the widely observed but never-well-understood increased incidence of temporal lobe epilepsy among the devoutly religious has also been more or less accounted for, in the same and in closely related research, which is interesting.

Patent nonsense. Before Darwin the vast majority of scientists in almost every sphere of science were theists and devoutly religious not epileptic. Further more citing a study of 6 people is balderdash and one of the most drop down silly things I have EVER seen as proof of something being "simply factual".

This is a discussion about evolution which many theists actually can adhere to and still be religious. trying to drift this off into anti religious statements and bias I would think is a total violation of board rules

The part of the brain that processes rational thought isn't the same part that holds religious beliefs

More utter nonsense that denies that rational thought straight up to Darwin INCLUDED theistic thought. That is undeniable history. There is a substantial difference between emotional RESPONSES to thought and thought itself. The emotional responses do not rule out rational processes any more than being in love somehow rules out a rational process and reason for loving someone. Thoughts about passages of scripture are not stored in non rational parts of the brain -

Thats just ROFL silliness

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283343].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

More utter nonsense that denies that rational thought straight up to Darwin INCLUDED theistic thought. That is undeniable history. There is a substantial difference between emotional RESPONSES to thought and thought itself. The emotional responses do not rule out rational processes any more than being in love somehow rules out a rational process and reason for loving someone. Thoughts about passages of scripture are not stored in non rational parts of the brain -

Thats just ROFL silliness

Ahhh, Now I know why nobody likes you. You are stating a fact that is true. It's also arguing something that I didn't say. You are arguing points I haven't made....Something I notice you do a lot here. Feel free to comment on anything I say from now on. This isn't my forum. But I won't be responding anymore. You're simply not a person I want to talk with.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283438].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Ahhh, Now I know why nobody likes you.

Odd that I have more thanks than you then isn't it? No I have less people in your sphere that like me because I hold positions they do not. Debate the subject not personality.

But I won't be responding anymore. You're simply not a person I want to talk with.

I would take the same approach if I wanted to avoid having to defend statements that are ENTIRELY untrue and that even go as far as to not only misrepresent religion but EVEN SCIENCE.

It is an undeniable fact that religion was (and many would says still is) a rational process controlled by the rational part of the brain. Practically every field of science was founded by a theist. Before Darwin there was not even much of a rational choice than religion (a point which even Dawkins admits). Since it was the defacto rational explanation for our world it cannot be claimed that religious thought and process are some how isolated from rational processes unless you wish to claim in the last hundred years brain chemistry evolved us to that state.

Its nonsense. Total nonsense and just an extreme Atheistic bias with no logical thought and certainly no established science to back it up.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283455].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Odd that I have more thanks than you then isn't it. No I have less people in your sphere that like me because I hold positions they do not. Debate the subject not personality.

Ratio, Mike. Check the ratio.

Not getting involved in your conversation - just telling you if you are using thanks to support your position, it would be wise to check the ratio before using it as validation.

:rolleyes:

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283477].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Odd that I have more thanks than you then isn't it. No I have less people in your sphere that like me because I hold positions they do not. Debate the subject not personality.

Seriously?

You are talking a mere 11 thanks and you were here a couple of months longer than Claude in which to acquire them.

If you want to debate Claude, at least choose something that holds some weight. :rolleyes:

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283478].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

just telling you if you are using thanks to support your position, it would be wise to check the ratio before using it as validation.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

If you want to debate Claude, at least choose something that holds some weight. :rolleyes:

Terra

:rolleyes: LOL. Ladies ladies. I know the practice is to close rank around your friends but reading is fundamental (and it doesn't work on some people). Claude raised the issue of who likes me and who does not which is entirely off any rational point. I answered in showing him that I have thanks and posts that people value and yes despite your pain - LIKE.

It is NOT the issue of the debate and neither did I choose it. He did.

IF you all want to bash religion and religious people in violation of board rules then have the dignity of facing the issues when challenged on your nonsense rather than trying to go after who doesn't like you or me or anyone else. I am not even vaguely interested in being a part of your clique. seen it and have no taste for it.

If claude wants to debate religion then let him bring the facts but alas he will lose if I am a part of it.

By the way ratio of thanks to posts is fine

I do most of my posts on a subject (SEO) not social banter.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283513].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

:rolleyes: LOL. Ladies ladies. I know the practice is to close rank around your friends but reading is fundamental. Claude raised the issue of who likes me and who does not which is entirely of any rational point. I answered in showing him that I have thanks and posts that people value and yes despite your pain - LIKE.

It is NOT the issue of the debate and neither did I choose it. He did.

IF you all want to bash religion and religious people in violation of board rules then have the dignity of facing the issues when challenged on your nonsense rather than trying to go after who doesn't like you or me or anyone else. I am not even vaguely interested in being a part of your clique. seen it and have no taste for it.

Mike,

Why are you assuming that I'm closing rank around my friends? And why do you think you having thanked posts causes me pain? For Pete's sake, I gave you one of them.

And furthermore, who said we are in a clique? I am my own woman and I know that Sal is too. Just because you perceive something to be true doesn't make it the truth. Your perception is your reality, not mine.

You do know what they say about people who assume things right?

And yes, in those parameters, I just called you an ass!

Terra

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283539].message }}

Mike Anthony 13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

And yes, in those parameters, I just called you an ass!

Terra

Do thoughts count? If so we might be even

and to answer your question - I've seen it for years - terribly obvious but it is possible you don't see yourself doing it.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283543].message }}
- MissTerraK 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  Do houghts count? If so we might be even
  
  If you meant thoughts, you just cracked me up, LOL!
  
  I do so love humor. Way to go.
  
  As for the rest of your post...Booo! Hisss!
  
  You had to go and spoil it all by editing after I quoted you, so now I'm doing the same. But I'm glad I caught it by posting my response first and going back to thank afterwards. No thanks are coming your way now. :p
  
  Terra
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283546].message }}
  
  Mike Anthony 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by MissTerraK
  
  If you meant thoughts, you just cracked me up, LOL!
  
  See thats why you are my favorite of The Brigade.
  
  As for the rest of your post...Booo! Hisss!
  
  ...oh well we are all a work in progress plus I understand you must keep up your brownie points
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284199].message }}
  
  MissTerraK 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  See thats why you are my favorite of The Brigade.
  
  Aw shucks! I'm blushin'. :p
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  ...oh well we are all a work in progress plus I understand you must keep up your brownie points
  
  I'll have you know that I don't except brownie points, but brownies? Yum!! That's an entirely different matter.
  
  Terra
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284244].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Girls, Girls, Girls!

First, thank you for coming to my defense. It brought a smile to my face and it means a lot to me.

Mike is a very bright man who is lucid and has a mind that works better than most, maybe better than mine. And if he were a nicer guy, I'd have spirited discussions where we would almost certainly agree most of the time.
He has my respect for that.

But he's on my "ignore list" now, and we can move on.

Who wants cake!?

Originally Posted by HeySal

I will agree that Claude got heated and made a comment that was truly beneath him (about nobody liking you). We all do that now and again. Sorry, Claude - I've got to give him this one.

You are right, of course. What I said wasn't true and was inaccurate. For that I apologize to Mike.
Anyway, let's move on.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283545].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Girls, Girls, Girls!

First, thank you for coming to my defense. It brought a smile to my face and it means a lot to me.

Mike is a very bright man who is lucid and has a mind that works better than most, maybe better than mine. And if he were a nicer guy, I'd have spirited discussions where we would almost certainly agree most of the time.
He has my respect for that.

But he's on my "ignore list" now, and we can move on.

Who wants cake!?

I wouldn't call my post (#50) as "to your defense".........................but can I still have cake? I LOVE cake.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283558].message }}

Claude Whitacre 13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I wouldn't call my post (#50) as "to your defense".........................but can I still have cake? I LOVE cake.

You called me on my BS, without being a bully. That's what friends do.

Wait...who's the one with the super flat stomach? No cake for you!
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283578].message }}
- HeySal 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  You called me on my BS, without being a bully. That's what friends do.
  
  Wait...who's the one with the super flat stomach? No cake for you!
  
  Not just flat - rippled:p Considering the amount of sugar I consume, that ain't no easy doings. I deserve cake! Oh forget it. I'll go make my own. I don't eat pieces of cake - I eat the whole damned thing.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Sal
  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
  Beyond the Path
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283590].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Girls, Girls, Girls!

First, thank you for coming to my defense. It brought a smile to my face and it means a lot to me.

Mike is a very bright man who is lucid and has a mind that works better than most, maybe better than mine. And if he were a nicer guy, I'd have spirited discussions where we would almost certainly agree most of the time.
He has my respect for that.

But he's on my "ignore list" now, and we can move on.

Who wants cake!?

You are right, of course. What I said wasn't true and was inaccurate. For that I apologize to Mike.
Anyway, let's move on.

Move on?

What are ya, nuts? Offer me cake and then before I have a chance to answer, you say move on?

Uh-uh, you're not off the hook. You owe me a big piece of cake.

Terra

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283565].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Mike is a very bright man who is lucid and has a mind that works better than most, maybe better than mine. And if he were a nicer guy, I'd have spirited discussions where we would almost certainly agree most of the time.
He has my respect for that.

Well although He cannot read me I would remind him that we HAVE had good discussions. Its in one of his threads where I agree with him profusely on his business model. The thing with online atheists though is that they make such deplorable over reaching degrading statements about religion and religious people that there is no way they can be considered nice in doing so (although they swear in condescension they are just being factual - which they are not)

Claude really totally lied on the fossil record - it is much more incomplete than he represented as even evolutionary biologists agree (with no contradiction to it)

nature debates

and then he went on to make a characterization of religion that essentially breaks down to mindlessness not even based on a rational part of the brain (and someone can be even entirely wrong and it still be based on a rational process).

I'll call utter nonsense whenever its utter nonsense and particularly on a subject that according to the rules should not even have been brought up. If you can't take the heat for misrepresenting a point - don't make it.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283599].message }}

Joe Mobley

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

It is an undeniable fact that religion was (and many would says still is) a rational process controlled by the rational part of the brain.

False.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Practically every field of science was founded by a theist.

Perhaps you have some supporting documentation?

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Before Darwin there was not even much of a rational choice than religion

Religion is not a rational choice. It is an emotional choice.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Since it was the defacto rational explanation for our world it cannot be claimed that religious thought and process are some how isolated from rational processes unless you wish to claim in the last hundred years brain chemistry evolved us to that state.

Gobbledygook.

Oh, wait... you said that.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Its nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Total nonsense and just an extreme Atheistic bias with no logical thought and certainly no established science to back it up.

False.

Mike, I'm not feeling the love of Jesus here. I'm sure you have a logical, factual, scientific reason for that.

Joe Mobley

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284073].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I can tell you this though, I envy people of faith. I see the comfort that it brings. It just isn't a part of me.

Claude,

I mean no disrespect to you at all when I say the following because I believe that you are a very intelligent, funny and witty man, that I like quite a bit actually.

But, I dare say it is a part of you. All faith is, is belief. Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? Yes? Then you have faith that it is true.

You could be a person of faith in the faith arena if you chose to. It isn't about seeing is believing, but in believing is seeing.

Maybe your perception just needs a little adjusting?

Terra

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283058].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Claude,

I mean no disrespect to you at all when I say the following because I believe that you are a very intelligent, funny and witty man, that I like quite a bit actually.

But, I dare say it is a part of you. All faith is, is belief. Do you believe in the Theory of Revolution? Yes? Then you have faith that it is true.

You could be a person of faith in the faith arena if you chose to. It isn't about seeing is believing, but in believing is seeing.

Maybe your perception just needs a little adjusting?

Terra

Terra; I have no faith that the theory of Evolution is true. I do not believe in it. I would change my mind with any new piece of evidence that supports a different theory.

A clearer answer, that better supports the facts? I'm there. I have no position...nothing to defend.

My perception is constantly being adjusted to see more clearly. And I appreciate the sentiment.

"Believing is seeing"
When you believe something first...and then find ways to see it....that's a mistake. a beautiful, poetic...loving....mistake.

And that's where this ends. Now, we are talking about religion...and reason breaks down.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283091].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Terra; I have no faith that the theory of Evolution is true. I do not believe in it. I would change my mind with any new piece of evidence that supports a different theory.

A clearer answer, that better supports the facts? I'm there. I have no position...nothing to defend.

My perception is constantly being adjusted to see more clearly. And I appreciate the sentiment.

"Believing is seeing"
When you believe something first...and then find ways to see it....that's a mistake. a beautiful, poetic...loving....mistake.

And that's where this ends. Now, we are talking about religion...and reason breaks down.

Okay, okay, the believing is seeing was a poor example. I remembered it from the movie The Santa Clause, and have always wanted to use it somewhere. I chose now and it didn't go over so well, lol!

I'm sorry if I misjudged you, but your following post seems to dictate otherwise...

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The answers are easy to find.
I should say here that every single detail of the evolutionary history of the Earth and life on it is readily available in biology books, encyclopedias, natural history courses, and the like.

Every single "missing link" has been found, there are no real gaps. Every possible step in the evolutionary track has fossil records now. Every natural history museum is full of the fossil proof.

Every fossil discovery supports every other discovery. The only reason it's still called a theory is that is is so universal in science, and that it can be applied to so many different subjects. Every biologist, paleontologist, geologist, and anthropologist has evolution as a strong tent pole in their studies.

Through carbon dating, ice core samples, and fossil records, the entire chronology of Earths history has been mapped.

There is no debate. There are just people who haven't studied how it works.
And the information isn't being kept from us either. Every week on The Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, and The National Geographic Channel, there are plenty of documentaries about the evolutionary history of life on Earth.

I could say the same regarding my beliefs but I honestly don't want to get into a debate about it. It is really difficult to debate matters of the heart, and again I respect you.

Terra

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283159].message }}

jimbo13 13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Do you believe in the Theory of Revolution? Yes?

Is that what cyclists believe in? If I turn the pedals the wheel revolves?

Dan
- [ 3 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283093].message }}
- MissTerraK 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by jimbo13
  
  Is that what cyclists believe in? If I turn the pedals the wheel revolves?
  
  Dan
  
  Haha! How did that "R" get in there?
  
  I'll just go make a little edit, now.
  
  Terra
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283103].message }}

ThomM

13 years ago

Claude understand I was just showing how you could be religious and still use logic.
As for myself I have no use for established religions and think they cause more problems then they solve.
I view God as everything, more so then the creator of everything.
When I'm talking to you (or anyone else) I'm talking to a part of God. When I look at a sun set or sun raise, I'm looking at a part of God. So to me God is not one thing that controls everything or creates everything, but is everything.
That may not make sense to you or seem logical to you, but it works for me and that's all that counts (for me). You can explain why you think I'm wrong and that's fine. It won't change what I believe and as long as my beliefs don't harm anyone or I don't try to force them on you there's no reason for me to change them.
I have a slightly different view of faith also.
Before I went to college I would plant a seed in my garden, water it and have faith it would grow into a plant. After college I would plant a seed and still have faith it would grow into a plant, but I now know the mechanisms in place that cause that seed to grow into a plant. Sometimes those seeds don't grow. Is it because of God's will or lack of faith? No it's because the seed wasn't viable.
When I jump in the air I have faith I will come back down. Is it my faith that brings me back down? Yes my faith in gravity working. The part of the brain that holds rational thoughts can co-exist and work with the part of the brain that holds beliefs.
I believe I'll be able to break into the local music scene again. I have faith in my playing abilities, even though my approach to drumming is different then others. That's what the 'belief' part of my brain tells me. The rational side tells me how I can do that and by doing what it tells me, enforces my faith.

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Thom; I've given that very question quite a lot of study and thought. I hope this helps.

Yes. I personally know many very intelligent people, who are highly educated..far smarter than I am...who have strong religious beliefs.

The part of the brain that processes rational thought isn't the same part that holds religious beliefs. It's why you can be brilliant, but love someone and make huge mistakes in judgement concerning that person. The rational part of the brain isn't involved.

Using logic and reason never work when discussing religion, because it's not a subject that is about logic and reason. Can you talk about love logically? Art?
Poetry? No, because they aren't subjects that are understood with the rational part of the brain.

At one time religion was actually our science. What causes a breeze? Lightening? Floods? A solar eclipse?

If you didn't have instruments or an understanding of laws of physics...how would you explain these things? Doesn't a breeze at your back feel like a loving hand, helping you along?

You would create gods...legends...in an attempt to understand your world. They would be passed down, generation to generation. They would be stories, then legends, then religion, then gospel.

As far as religious beliefs today? I'm sorry, my friend....mine are missing.
I simply can't see what some people see, or feel what some people feel.
I can tell you this though, I envy people of faith. I see the comfort that it brings. It just isn't a part of me.

When you see the Sun moving across the sky....
If you ask "Who is moving the Sun?"...you are creating or studying religion.
If you ask "Why is the Sun moving across the sky?" you are creating philosophy.
If you ask "How is the Sun moving across the sky?", you are a scientist.

That just popped into my head.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283351].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I have a slightly different view of faith also.
Before I went to college I would plant a seed in my garden, water it and have faith it would grow into a plant. After college I would plant a seed and still have faith it would grow into a plant, but I now know the mechanisms in place that cause that seed to grow into a plant. Sometimes those seeds don't grow. Is it because of God's will or lack of faith? No it's because the seed wasn't viable.

When I jump in the air I have faith I will come back down. Is it my faith that brings me back down? Yes my faith in gravity working. The part of the brain that holds rational thoughts can co-exist and work with the part of the brain that holds beliefs.

Thom; The first bolded part of your posts is explaining experience, empirical evidence....these are the backbones of science.

Jumping into the air? Having faith in gravity? Think about this for a moment. You said "Is it my faith that brings me back down? Yes my faith in gravity working"

But I have no faith, and gravity still works. I throw a rock into the air...and the rock has no faith..and it still comes back down. The Earth has no faith...but gravity keeps us in orbit. A baseball always comes back down, and it has no faith at all.

Of course the part of the brain that holds rational thought can co-exist with the part that holds religious faith. Nearly 90% of Americans have a real faith in God. Maybe a different god, but mostly the One.

By the way, the faith you have in your musical ability? That's real faith. It may be based on experience, feedback from listeners, or just what you think yourself. But in this case, faith is a pre-requisite to success, and I hope for your success.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283422].message }}

ThomM

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Thom; The first bolded part of your posts is explaining experience, empirical evidence....these are the backbones of science.

Jumping into the air? Having faith in gravity? Think about this for a moment. You said "Is it my faith that brings me back down? Yes my faith in gravity working"

But I have no faith, and gravity still works. I throw a rock into the air...and the rock has no faith..and it still comes back down. The Earth has no faith...but gravity keeps us in orbit. A baseball always comes back down, and it has no faith at all.

Of course the part of the brain that holds rational thought can co-exist with the part that holds religious faith. Nearly 90% of Americans have a real faith in God. Maybe a different god, but mostly the One.

By the way, the faith you have in your musical ability? That's real faith. It may be based on experience, feedback from listeners, or just what you think yourself. But in this case, faith is a pre-requisite to success, and I hope for your success.

Right a lot that I say I have faith in is based on experiences. I also said this "I have a slightly different view of faith also"
And I said this "That may not make sense to you or seem logical to you, but it works for me and that's all that counts (for me). You can explain why you think I'm wrong and that's fine. It won't change what I believe and as long as my beliefs don't harm anyone or I don't try to force them on you there's no reason for me to change them"
Does me saying I have faith in something harm you in any way?
Am I trying to force my beliefs on you?
Did I say if you don't have faith in gravity or anything else it won't work?
Just because I say I have faith in gravity doesn't change how gravity works, nor does it mean I think my faith in it makes it work.
I said I have faith in gravity bringing me back down, because that is what it does, gravity that is

I asked because there is no such verse in any Christian scriptures. In fact the way the word "faith" is used nowadays is NOT the way it was used in biblical times. In fact in Christian scriptures it is most usually used with "en" the greek word for in. Like when you trust in a friend. You can have all kinds of evidence that the friend is real but still put trust in them. Anyway not to get into a debate on religion but since so many were already bringing it up thats my response. That verse you heard about does not exist.

Mike not that it matters, because like I said to Clarence I'm not trying to force anything on anybody here. But have you read all 769 occurrences of the word faith in the bible? It's been 30 years since I've read the Bible, so I could be wrong. In fact thinking back the verse could of been more about freewill A in God didn't leave proof of his existence so we would have the freewill to worship him or not.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284129].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Does me saying I have faith in something harm you in any way?
Am I trying to force my beliefs on you?
Did I say if you don't have faith in gravity or anything else it won't work?
Just because I say I have faith in gravity doesn't change how gravity works, nor does it mean I think my faith in it makes it work.
I said I have faith in gravity bringing me back down, because that is what it does, gravity that is

Does me saying I have faith in something harm you in any way? Nope.
Am I trying to force my beliefs on you? Nope.
Did I say if you don't have faith in gravity or anything else it won't work? Nope.
Just because I say I have faith in gravity doesn't change how gravity works, nor does it mean I think my faith in it makes it work.
I said I have faith in gravity bringing me back down, because that is what it does, gravity that is

Then I misunderstood what you meant.

This marks the first time Claude has ever misunderstood what some one said.:rolleyes:

By the way, I would blame the Forum for locking this thread or deleting it. The subject is a no-win argument starter. And I did more than my part to stir the pot. Be sure to read my new thread "Witches; Misunderstood teenagers, or the spawn of Hitler?"

I'm taking way too many Forum breaks from working.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284153].message }}

ThomM

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Does me saying I have faith in something harm you in any way? Nope.
Am I trying to force my beliefs on you? Nope.
Did I say if you don't have faith in gravity or anything else it won't work? Nope.
Just because I say I have faith in gravity doesn't change how gravity works, nor does it mean I think my faith in it makes it work.
I said I have faith in gravity bringing me back down, because that is what it does, gravity that is

Then I misunderstood what you meant.

This marks the first time Claude has ever misunderstood what some one said.:rolleyes:

By the way, I would blame the Forum for locking this thread or deleting it. The subject is a no-win argument starter. And I did more than my part to stir the pot. Be sure to read my new thread "Witches; Misunderstood teenagers, or the spawn of Hitler?"

I'm taking way too many Forum breaks from working.

Claude it's common for people to misunderstand what I mean

Happens to me all the time. Usually I don't care enough about the person I'm talking to to explain myself. But I like you and most others here, so I'll take the time to try and clear up what I'm saying

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284273].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Mike not that it matters, because like I said to Clarence I'm not trying to force anything on anybody here. But have you read all 769 occurrences of the word faith in the bible? It's been 30 years since I've read the Bible, so I could be wrong. In fact thinking back the verse could of been more about freewill A in God didn't leave proof of his existence so we would have the freewill to worship him or not.

Fair enough and not debating it just answering your question. Yes its something I have researched. Theres no such passage but hey if I fell on my head and you find it then PM me. Even the term "Blind faith" is not in there. In fact Claude's whole definition of "faith" isn't even biblical. Common misconception though.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284173].message }}

ThomM

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Fair enough and not debating it just answering your question. Yes its something I have researched. Theres no such passage but hey if I fell on my head and you find it then PM me. Even the term "Blind faith" is not in there. In fact Claude's whole definition of "faith" isn't even biblical. Common misconception though.

No I believe you. Like I said at the end of my post, I realized it had to do with freewill and not faith. I was also just going by what I remember from 30 years ago so don't take what I said as an exact quote

Besides it's just a discussion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or say someone is right or wrong if they have a different view then I do

Blind Faith should be in there as in "Blind Faith was one of the first Supergroups of Rock and Roll"

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284292].message }}

Mike Anthony 13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or say someone is right or wrong if they have a different view then I do

Hey Thom...I know...rest assured you never came across that way to me.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8285566].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

For example there is one verse that says God won't leave any evidence of his existence so people will believe based on faith. That verse (to me) allows Christians to except things like evolution, physics, etc. as Gods work.

Not to go off on a religious discussion - which I take are forbidden but you just did- but I've never heard of that verse. Where is it?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283300].message }}

Joe Mobley

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Not to go off on a religious discussion -

You would be wise to follow you own advice. You would be slaughtered in seconds with... what are those... oh yea, truth, fact, evidense, logic, reason.

Or Paul's "ban-finger." :rolleyes:

Joe Mobley

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284094].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

You would be wise to follow you own advice. You would be slaughtered in seconds with... what are those... oh yea, truth, fact, evidense, logic, reason.

Or Paul's "ban-finger." :rolleyes:

Joe Mobley

Joe bluster will get you nowhere with me. Save it for the weak minded. I have not debated religion on this board. I was the first to say that others were and its against the board rules.

However as to your challenge - name a time and place and I will debate you and see who gets slaughtered. Posturing on a board where you know it cannot be debated is like telling your friends to hold you back and shouting "if my friends were not holding me back I'd whip your behind" LOL

I've debated it several time over the years and judging by your comments of what is false above you would be no match (Shucks I have debated it with Scientists - unbelieving ones I mean). The last to try from here met me by PM and he was honest enough to admit - he had never met anyone before that had as rational answers as I did.

Hey PM me and we can arrange it. I am always up for a little no sweat exercise.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284157].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

For example there is one verse that says God won't leave any evidence of his existence so people will believe based on faith. That verse (to me) allows Christians to except things like evolution, physics, etc. as Gods work..

Hey Thom before I logged out I wanted to follow up on my question in case I forget about this thread

I asked because there is no such verse in any Christian scriptures. In fact the way the word "faith" is used nowadays is NOT the way it was used in biblical times. In fact in Christian scriptures it is most usually used with "en" the greek word for in. Like when you trust in a friend. You can have all kinds of evidence that the friend is real but still put trust in them. Anyway not to get into a debate on religion but since so many were already bringing it up thats my response. That verse you heard about does not exist.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283674].message }}

lcombs

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I think one of the problems is most religious types cherry pick what they want to believe or just take things in the bible at face value.
For example there is one verse that says God won't leave any evidence of his existence so people will believe based on faith. That verse (to me) allows Christians to except things like evolution, physics, etc. as Gods work. Go back a couple thousand years and people didn't have a clue about evolution or physics so they needed a way to explain those things that made sense to them at that time. Why today they still except those two thousand year old ideas instead of excepting that God would be smart enough to create evolution and physics is beyond me.
If it wasn't for dinosaurs and the vegetation of that period would we still have oil? If there wasn't an explanation for where oil came from would there be a Made by God sticker on it? If the sticker existed, faith wouldn't.

Sorry to go on a religious rant but I wanted to show you can still look at things with logic and still believe in a God.

When I was a truck driver I made several deliveries to the Creation Museum.
Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284043].message }}

ThomM

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

When I was a truck driver I made several deliveries to the Creation Museum.
Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

I just did the virtual tour on that site, looks pretty neat

I think the gardens would be nicer if they where actual gardens though

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284151].message }}

David Beroff

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

Where do they fit in Darwins theory?

Dinosaurs were not able to evolve quickly enough to adapt to the dramatic climate changes brought on by a meteor striking the earth 65 million years ago.

Cockroaches were.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Put MY voice on YOUR video: AwesomeAmericanAudio.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279136].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

From a strictly scientific/philosophic point of view.

I've never heard of how Darwin addresses dinosaurs.
Where do they fit in Darwins theory?

Do you mean "Why aren't they here today?"..or
"Where did they evolve from?"

The answers are easy to find.
I should say here that every single detail of the evolutionary history of the Earth and life on it is readily available in biology books, encyclopedias, natural history courses, and the like.

Every single "missing link" has been found, there are no real gaps. Every possible step in the evolutionary track has fossil records now. Every natural history museum is full of the fossil proof.

Every fossil discovery supports every other discovery. The only reason it's still called a theory is that is is so universal in science, and that it can be applied to so many different subjects. Every biologist, paleontologist, geologist, and anthropologist has evolution as a strong tent pole in their studies.

Through carbon dating, ice core samples, and fossil records, the entire chronology of Earths history has been mapped.

There is no debate. There are just people who haven't studied how it works.

And the information isn't being kept from us either. Every week on The Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, and The National Geographic Channel, there are plenty of documentaries about the evolutionary history of life on Earth.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279663].message }}

lcombs

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Do you mean "Why aren't they here today?"..or
"Where did they evolve from?"

The answers are easy to find.
I should say here that every single detail of the evolutionary history of the Earth and life on it is readily available in biology books, encyclopedias, natural history courses, and the like.

Every single "missing link" has been found, there are no real gaps. Every possible step in the evolutionary track has fossil records now. Every natural history museum is full of the fossil proof.

Every fossil discovery supports every other discovery. The only reason it's still called a theory is that is is so universal in science, and that it can be applied to so many different subjects. Every biologist, paleontologist, geologist, and anthropologist has evolution as a strong tent pole in their studies.

Through carbon dating, ice core samples, and fossil records, the entire chronology of Earths history has been mapped.

There is no debate. There are just people who haven't studied how it works.

And the information isn't being kept from us either. Every week on The Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, and The National Geographic Channel, there are plenty of documentaries about the evolutionary history of life on Earth.

Uhhhhhh.....

Would you care to elaborate and answer the OP?

Thanks

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279792].message }}

Mike Anthony 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Every single "missing link" has been found, there are no real gaps. Every possible step in the evolutionary track has fossil records now..

Oh my.....Sorry Claude but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. we must be careful not to lie by overstatement. Only on a marketing board would you get away with such an over the top wrong statement. Its not even about denying evolution its that many many paleontologists and evolutionary biologists would take serious objection to the idea that the work they still engage in has somehow been settled. We have countless gaps in our knowledge and many "missing links. Just in the Cambrian alone we have many questions still unanswered.

What you wrote there is really just from a TOTALLY uninformed mindset. You really do need to go beyond watching Television programs and you will get a much better perspective of where the real science is. Science continues it is not anywhere near concluded in evolutionary biology.

What you just stated is science fiction.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283424].message }}

yukon

Banned 13 years ago

Duh..., dinosaurs came from dinosaur eggs, lmao!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279831].message }}

lcombs 13 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Duh..., dinosaurs came from dinosaur eggs, lmao!

DAMMIT!
It's always the obvious one.
"Can't see the forest for trees" kinda thing.:p
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279888].message }}
- Claude Whitacre 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by lcombs
  
  Uhhhhhh.....
  
  Would you care to elaborate and answer the OP?
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  Do you mean "Why aren't they here today?"..or
  "Where did they evolve from?"
  
  It's easier to answer the question if I have a more specific question to answer.
  That's why I asked.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  "Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280592].message }}

David Maschke

13 years ago

Claude,

It's impossible to stereotype you.

An atheist who can stomach Joel Olsteen. I'm a "not atheist" and I can't put up with the guy for five minutes.

I have an even more controversial debate to have with you...

Wooster rhymes with rooster.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280654].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Claude,

It's impossible to stereotype you.

An atheist who can stomach Joel Olsteen. I'm a "not atheist" and I can't put up with the guy for five minutes.

I have an even more controversial debate to have with you...

Wooster rhymes with rooster.

David: I'm a marketer, and so is Joel Olsteen. The product isn't important to me, the methodology is. It's why I can listen to FOX News and MSNBC without tearing out my hair. In presidential debates, I study the structure of the argument, and the way it's presented. Some of these guys are very well coached.

Wooster actually has a different pronunciation. I can't think of a word that rhymes with it. The "oo" is pronounced more like the "u" in "Fun".

We have a street named Beal Avenue, that's pronounced "Bell". Weird.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282318].message }}

David Maschke

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

David: I'm a marketer, and so is Joel Olsteen. The product isn't important to me, the methodology is. It's why I can listen to FOX News and MSNBC without tearing out my hair. In presidential debates, I study the structure of the argument, and the way it's presented. Some of these guys are very well coached.

Wooster actually has a different pronunciation. I can't think of a word that rhymes with it. The "oo" is pronounced more like the "u" in "Fun".

We have a street named Beal Avenue, that's pronounced "Bell". Weird.

My wife is from Wooster, and I pronounce the "oo" more like "root" rather than "book" and it drives her crazy.

Your logic and reasoning skills, and being able to dismiss points of view that may not be like mine without getting angry is what I'm hoping to achieve.

My hat is off to you, my friend.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282353].message }}

Dan Riffle

13 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

My wife is from Wooster, and I pronounce the "oo" more like "root" rather than "book" and it drives her crazy.

Your logic and reasoning skills, and being able to dismiss points of view that may not be like mine without getting angry is what I'm hoping to achieve.

My hat is off to you, my friend.

I always thought Wooster was pronounced with the u sound like in wuss or push. Wusster.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282405].message }}

Claude Whitacre 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

I always thought Wooster was pronounced with the u sound like in wuss or push. Wusster.

Actually, closer than my example. Yup, that's how the locals pronounce it.
- Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

"Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282476].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Your logic and reasoning skills, and being able to dismiss points of view that may not be like mine without getting angry is what I'm hoping to achieve.

My hat is off to you, my friend.

This.

I can't often do this. I sometimes pretend to and hope that doing that regularly will make it easier.
My hat is also regularly off to Claude.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282537].message }}

jimbo13

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Wooster actually has a different pronunciation. I can't think of a word that rhymes with it. The "oo" is pronounced more like the "u" in "Fun".

Quite simply Wooster is pronounced exactly the same as Worcester.

Americans like to ask for the train from London to Warsesster when trying to pronounce Worcester. No idea why?

Dan

PS: In England Wooster is how Claude says it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283016].message }}

LarryC

13 years ago

Another tough one is Leicester Square in London. It's hard for Americans not to pronounce all the syllables

Originally Posted by jimbo13

Quite simply Wooster is pronounced exactly the same as Worcester.

Americans like to ask for the train from London to Warsesster when trying to pronounce Worcester. No idea why?

Dan

PS: In England Wooster is how Claude says it.

Thanks

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8285824].message }}

RichBeck

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

From a strictly scientific/philosophic point of view.

I've never heard of how Darwin addresses dinosaurs.
Where do they fit in Darwins theory?

lcombs,

I wonder what the "theory" is about dinosaurs....

I've studied evolution for years...... It is one of the rare places in "science" where there are so many gaps... and leaps of faith... They are downright religious....

They claim to have "all the facts." Yet, when challenged about specific gaps.... They waffle....

That is why it referred to as a "theory."

My favorite story was a "missing link." It turned out to be an arthritic ape... :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for the evolutionists to explain the Woodpecker...

All The Best,

Rich Beck BCIP, MCSD, MCIS

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282559].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

I think the universe and nature are thinking entities functioning much like the human brain does. I don't know why Monty Python's Flying Circus came to mind as I was writing that.

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282568].message }}

webrankingservices

Banned 13 years ago

What brought you worried about dinosaurs and Darvin at Warrior Forum. Well the Darwins' theory says survival of the Fittest. His rules applied on whole biosphere in general and not dependent on the Dinisaurs in specific.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283472].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Mike - you over-reached in your answer to my (and other) posts. All I said is ya might not want to use thanks count as validation.

I will agree that Claude got heated and made a comment that was truly beneath him (about nobody liking you). We all do that now and again. Sorry, Claude - I've got to give him this one.

But all your chastising over my statement about ratio is likewise uncalled for.

The fact is - no matter who "likes" us or doesn't - there are times that we say things that people agree with enough to thank us for making the point even if they find us generally repulsive. I'm a complete wench and people thank me when I make a valuable point.

You see Kurt, Tim, and I go at each other? You ever seen the thanks we sometimes lay on each other? It happens. Get used to it.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283537].message }}

lcombs

13 years ago

Well........
Judging from the responses I've read,
I have come to the conclusion that Darwin's theory
is flawed and therefore moot.
Darwin did not address the Dinosaurs.
Let alone the time between the Dinosaurs demise and the
'beginning' of evolution as he supposes.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284224].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

Well........
Judging from the responses I've read,
I have come to the conclusion that Darwin's theory
is flawed and therefore moot.
Darwin did not address the Dinosaurs.
Let alone the time between the Dinosaurs demise and the
'beginning' of evolution as he supposes.

Brilliant deduction my dear Les!

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284249].message }}

lcombs

13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Brilliant deduction my dear Les!

Terra

Ok, MissTerraK...

Again, my bad for not being clear.
We have 1 LarryC in the forum which I should have used to begin with.

I am also a LarryC.
Just say fyi.:rolleyes:

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284371].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

Ok, MissTerraK...

Again, my bad for not being clear.
We have 1 LarryC in the forum which I should have used to begin with.

I am also a LarryC.
Just say fyi.:rolleyes:

Okay, L Combs,

I now require your full name, rank and serial number so I don't keep slaughtering you.

:p

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8285203].message }}

lcombs 13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Okay, L Combs,

I now require your full name, rank and serial number so I don't keep slaughtering you. :p

Terra

Sorry, name is all I can give you.
Any more information could place you in harms way.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8285766].message }}
- MissTerraK 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by lcombs
  
  Sorry, name is all I can give you.
  Any more information could place you in harms way.
  
  Haha!
  
  At least I got the most important part for now, Larry.
  
  Terra
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8285774].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Mike - you over-reached in your answer to my (and other) posts. All I said is ya might not want to use thanks count as validation.

I will agree that Claude got heated and made a comment that was truly beneath him (about nobody liking you). We all do that now and again. Sorry, Claude - I've got to give him this one. <snip>

Claude was responding to what could easily be interpreted as a belligerent and condescending message with such words as "you don't know what you're talking about." Is he supposed to turn the other cheek or respond politely to that? Claude came across someone insulting him while punching a straw-man and basically said that he didn't want to hang-out with that dude. Is that wrong?

(BTW I am a theist who generally prefers the company of atheists who do, after all, tend to be smart)

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8284654].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Claude was responding to what could easily be interpreted as a belligerent and condescending message

Mike was responding to what easily could be and was a condescending message of how irrational theists are based on OUTRAGEOUSLY false information which happens to be a subject that to his knowledge should not even be a discussion on this forum.

(BTW I am a theist who generally prefers the company of atheists who do, after all, tend to be smart)

There is no ""after all". That is an opinion in many circumstances contradicted by the facts. It can go either way based on your sampling. In mine it is the reverse. My condolences to you but it can be rectified by widening your sphere.

P.S. and on the subject - Yes - like it or not anyone who claims the fossil record is complete with all gaps filled in most definitely does not know what he is talking about. No palaeontologist or evolutionary biologists makes such an outrageous claim. Don't believe me? - Ask one or Google it.. Its by no means a denial of evolution. Its just waaaay out of the truth. IF you imply there is information in books that people are too uninformed to read and then make whoppingly false statements about what are in them then you should expect to hear that you do not know what you are talking about (especially when you are implying some who disagree with you are uneducated). There was also not even the whiff of a strawman. Claude's message was exactly what I claimed it to be. I could take several quotes and prove it but it is not the subject of this thread.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8285494].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Mike was responding to what easily could be and was a condescending message of how irrational theists are based on OUTRAGEOUSLY false information which happens to be a subject that to his knowledge should not even be a discussion on this forum.

There is no ""after all". That is an opinion in many circumstances contradicted by the facts. It can go either way based on your sampling. In mine it is the reverse. My condolences to you but it can be rectified by widening your sphere.

P.S. and on the subject - Yes - like it or not anyone who claims the fossil record is complete with all gaps filled in most definitely does not know what he is talking about. No palaeontologist or evolutionary biologists makes such an outrageous claim. Don't believe me? - Ask one or Google it.. Its by no means a denial of evolution. Its just waaaay out of the truth. IF you imply there is information in books that people are too uninformed to read and then make whoppingly false statements about what are in them then you should expect to hear that you do not know what you are talking about (especially when you are implying some who disagree with you are uneducated). There was also not even the whiff of a strawman. Claude's message was exactly what I claimed it to be. I could take several quotes and prove it but it is not the subject of this thread.

I'm not going to get into a pompous and pretentious debate about evolution with you. It's not whatever point you were making that is the issue, it is doing so in a condescending manner as you've done again with me. Lighten up, dude. I don't need your condolences. Atheists do tend to be brighter than average. Google it if you don't believe me. That is a fact. It doesn't mean that there aren't incredibly mega-smart theists, eg Terra.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8285988].message }}

Mike Anthony 13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

it is doing so in a condescending manner as you've done again with me.

No I did not . Where? You are making up things to validate your position. Plain and simple. You seem to be disturbed at me saying "my condolences" which is nothing more than stating that if you feel that you as a theist prefer atheist company for greater intelligence you obviously don't know enough intelligent theists which IS a disadvantage for a claimed theist.

Atheists do tend to be brighter than average. Google it if you don't believe me. That is a fact.

You have no fact. Its just your assessment along with a few tilted polls and pundits (mostly other atheists) with their equally empty claims. State it ten more times. What you might classify as the average may not have any reference to my own sampling. I've yet to see a study even quantify what the "Average" theist is. The whole concept is vacuous until you determine what an average theist is (Christian, Hindu, Moslem? then Baptist or Roman Catholic. Then in which country or state?) which no one ever has. Its not like you can mix them all up and come up with any representation. Averages for some things just do not work. Think about it. Its a drop down poor argument far from your stated fact.

P.S. stating atheist are more intelligent than Theists IS a religious debate. Something a number of you have been doing for several posts now.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286183].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Mike,

T-bird has given you a gem in his post above. It's this part right here.

It doesn't mean that there aren't incredibly mega-smart theists, eg Terra.

Er, wait!

I meant this part right here:

It's not whatever point you were making that is the issue, it is doing so in a condescending manner...

Speaking in a condescending manner is a passive-aggressive approach to giving someone a verbal put-down while trying to maintain a facade of reasonableness or friendliness. The veiled message behind this kind of attack is, “I am better than you”.

By masking your purpose in this way, are you are hoping to deliver the attack while minimizing the risk of retaliation or being held accountable for your behavior?

Or does it come from low self esteem where you feel better about yourself by belittling others?

It definitely reveals an insecurity and a feeling of inadequacy within you somewhere.

I don't say this to be mean or anything, but to encourage you to do some self inspection because I know you have some appealing characteristics as I've seen them. Wouldn't life be better if you didn't always have to be trying unsuccessfully to defend your actions?

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286185].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

I don't say this to be mean or anything, but to encourage you to do some self inspection because I know you have some appealing characteristics as I've seen them. Wouldn't life be better if you didn't always have to be trying unsuccessfully to defend your actions?

Terra

Of course you do mean to be mean. Lets not pretend. You are obviously selective and biased. No? Then please answer - How are people saying that theists are not thinking rationally or using the rational part of their brain not a veiled way of saying "I am better/superior/exercise more rationality than you?"

Do you have a rational answer to that? One that does not involve mental gymnastics? I suspect you don't and will go hand waving into another direction but this highlights precisely I believe why discussions like these are not allowed here.

When Claude was falsely writing his thesis on the minds of theist and how their theism is not from a rational process (joined by Alexa's Epileptic study as alleged confirmation :rolleyes

you skip over the CLEAR condescension of such an argument but if it is met with anything you conceive as condescension you object. Alas not surprising but a sure sign of bias.

and no sorry. I am not being unsuccessful at all. I would never post here if my measuring stick of success was based on popular approval. It isn't. I've told you that before. Its based on logic. All appeals to who likes who, who agrees with who ,as a measure of success is pointless unless all you want is a rubber stamp of the most popular in an off topic section of a marketing forum which counts for little.

and Terra its should be beneath you to make up false charges of lying or deceit. I have masked nothing. I object to a condescending argument against theists on a board that does not allow debate on religion at all. Where is this lie of "masking my purpose"? You ought to be ashamed to make such an assertion.

As you implied everyone needs a little self inspection right?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286312].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Of course you do mean to be mean. Lets not pretend. You are obviously selective and biased. No? Then please answer - How are people saying that theists are not thinking rationally or using the rational part of their brain not a veiled way of saying "I am better/superior/exercise more rationality than you?"

Do you have a rational answer to that? One that does not involve mental gymnastics? I suspect you don't and will go hand waving into another direction but this highlights precisely I believe why discussions like these are not allowed here.

When Claude was falsely writing his thesis on the minds of theist and how their theism is not from a rational process you skip over the CLEAR condescension of such an argument but if it is met with anything you conceive as condescension you object. Alas not surprising but a sure sign of bias.

and no sorry. I am not being unsuccessful at all. I would never post here if my measuring stick of success was based on popular approval. It isn't. I've told you that before. Its based on logic. All appeals to who likes who, who agrees with who ,as a measure of success is pointless unless all you want is a rubber stamp of the most popular in an off topic section of a marketing forum which counts for little.

and Terra its should be beneath you to make up false charges of lying or deceit. I have masked nothing. I object to a condescending argument against theists on a board that does not allow debate on religion at all. Where is this lie of "masking my purpose"? You ought to be ashamed to make such an assertion.

Where to start?

First off, I apologize if you think I was being mean as I truly wasn't. I do like to help people, I can't help it. It is the way I was raised. If you don't approve, I guess I'll have to tell you one of the things I live by. I am who I am and if you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine. Trying to please everybody would be an exercise in futility because it can't be done be me or by anybody else for that matter.

Yes, you can say the same thing but I don't hide how I really feel behind negative behavior. I am an open book for everyone's reading pleasure.

As for Claude's response, I didn't agree with it or like it one bit. The only reason I didn't address it was because to do so would have been blatantly disobeying the rule which you are talking about and pointing out other people breaking. Does this mean I don't like Claude? Nope. I honestly find him to be an intelligent, funny, witty person who makes me laugh.

Also, I don't ridicule other people on their beliefs if they differ from mine and can only hope others would be mature enough not to ridicule me for mine. We were all given the right, the free will to choose whatsoever we believe. Who am I to question that? I much rather enjoy talking to others about the things we do agree on and share common ground on rather than the things we do not.

Everybody is entitled their own opinion just like I am, I don't have to give an account of theirs, only mine. Therefore, if you think I am biased, so be it. Your are entitled, Your mind is made up and so I won't try to change it.

Please don't twist my words. I never said you were unsuccessful, I said your are trying to defend your actions unsuccessfully. There is a big difference.

Oh, and I don't feel ashamed one bit for saying your condescending attitude is masking an inner feeling of inadequacy or low self esteem. That came right out of psychology 101 from my college days.

I never said you were lying or were deceitful. But just so you won't be a liar, I think you are lying to and being deceitful to yourself. There? Feel better?

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286502].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Oh, and I don't feel ashamed one bit for saying your condescending attitude is masking an inner feeling of inadequacy or low self esteem. That came right out of psychology 101 from my college days.

I never said you were lying or were deceitful. But just so you won't be a liar, I think you are lying to and being deceitful to yourself. There? Feel better?

Terra

I feel the same way as I did before on this issue - blah - par for the course. You did pretty much what I said you would do - hand wave without answering the question. Such a simple question too so it speaks VOLUMES why you duck from answering.

How are people saying that theists are not thinking rationally or using the rational part of their brain not a veiled way of saying "I am better/superior/exercise more rationality than you?"

My suspicion is you won't answer it because it destroys your narrative to answer it honestly. After all if someone objects to condescension then you can't try the belittling slur (and it is was - one could even say it was "masking a true purpose" by doing so in a friendly manner

) that they have low esteem.

I did psychology 101 in college and 102 and 103 - One of my multi majors - and there is no such thesis. You made it up to facilitate your argument. If someone objects to a condescending argument and even meets it with condescension that cause is in the first condescending argument not self esteem.

Will we hear next from you that if someone objects to a prejudice its because they think the prejudice might be true and have low esteem?

That would be an equal twist on logic. Besides the whole low self esteem nonsense is just dripping with condescension which is terribly hypocritical on your part.

Now ending your post by again referring to me doing some other kind of lying in addition to previous charge of allegedly "masking true purpose" - why yes there are some psychological conditions that would prompt you to do that while denying charging someone with lying. Dust off the old psychology 101 book.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286667].message }}

lcombs

13 years ago

GADZOOKS PEOPLE!

There's an INCREDIBLE amount of time and energy being wasted
playing the "he said, she said" game.

Jeezle Pete, give it a rest!
Wait....
I've got a better idea.
somebody start a Waaaaaambulance thread.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286672].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Mike,

I'm tiring of going on a merry go round ride with you. Again, you're being worse than a sophist, you're being a casuist.

I'll answer your question you think I am avoiding, then I'm done.

How are people saying that theists are not thinking rationally or using the rational part of their brain not a veiled way of saying "I am better/superior/exercise more rationality than you?

How? Rather easily it would appear.

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286711].message }}

Mike Anthony 13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

How? Rather easily it would appear.

Terra

LOL......quintessential non answer - Do you ever not do what I predict? Anyway Terra enjoy the rest of your day.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286721].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

GADZOOKS PEOPLE!

There's an INCREDIBLE amount of time and energy being wasted
playing the "he said, she said" game.

Jeezle Pete, give it a rest!
Wait....
I've got a better idea.
somebody start a Waaaaaambulance thread.

Larry,

Who is Pete? I must be missing some posts in my version of this thread. :p

Oh, and don't whaaa me!

To my fragile little ego that depends on being liked by everybody, that would be a whammy!

Terra

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286797].message }}

jimbo13

13 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

I've never heard of how Darwin addresses dinosaurs.

I believe it was along the lines of 'Good Morning Mr Dinosaur, how are you today?'

Dan

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286689].message }}

ThomM 13 years ago

Originally Posted by jimbo13

I believe it was along the lines of 'Good Morning Mr Dinosaur, how are you today?'

Dan

Depends on the dinosaur I think. If it was a Spinosaurus it may of been more along the lines of "Oh s**t" and "RUN".
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286723].message }}
- MissTerraK 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Depends on the dinosaur I think. If it was a Spinosaurus it may of been more along the lines of "Oh s**t" and "RUN".
  
  If it were a Terrasaurus, it might have been along the lines of "High! Bottoms up!" and take another drink.
  
  Terrasaurus
  
  Terra
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8286917].message }}
- lcombs 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Depends on the dinosaur I think. If it was a Spinosaurus it may of been more along the lines of "Oh s**t" and "RUN".
  
  That sounds like the most logical response.
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287730].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Can't remember who said back there that ALL (or most) were men of religion? Um.....yeah they were - until it was no longer necessary to be faith based to ensure the ruler wouldn't kill you for disbelief. They were not only men of religion - they were men of the particular religion their ruler proclaimed people had to believe in. Descartes, while a philosopher and not a scienctist, wrote a thesis that completely trumped the commanded perception of god and spent just as long disclaiming how the theory was not a deviation from commanded thought as to actually give his theory.

............because back then when someone said "don't lose your head over [a new idea, discovery, etc.], they were speaking literally, not figuratively.

Today some scientists hold religion and some don't. Simple as that.

You can't use a scientists faith as a point in anything they do scientifically if they were under orders of a King not to think otherwise under threat of death.:rolleyes: We will never know what some of these guys actually knew scientifically or believed religiously because they had to juggle around their laws to stay safe.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287245].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Can't remember who said back there that ALL (or most) were men of religion? Um.....yeah they were - until it was no longer necessary to be faith based to ensure the ruler wouldn't kill you for disbelief.

As fine a piece of conspiracy nonsense as I have ever read from you Sal. Devoid of any evidence and constructed entirely out of a supposition. Just one question. What would they all have abandoned their religion for? Darwinism? in some cases centuries after they were dead?

No you just have no grasp of history. Many of them went above and beyond in the expression of their faith that they never needed to in order to keep their heads and many of them had no fear of losing their heads at all.

May we argue that few scientists embrace ID because it would be professional suicide? So we will never know what they would really think? and therefore "We will never know what some of these guys actually knew scientifically or believed religiously because they had to juggle around their statements to stay employed."

?

Now if I say - "just absolute poor poor reasoning assuming a non true faith for all/most theist scientist in history" will I hear again about condescension? Alas since I fear not the claims of condescension -

Poor poor reasoning.

BY the way....do you guys know something about the rules of not debating religion on this forum that I don't? Is it that defending theism is what is off the table but attacking theism is? Or isn't it just a general prohibition? Seem many of you who have been around longer think its the former and since you have been longer might even be right. I don't know but no matter what you keep raising the issue of religion, theists and theism.

and for those who think evolution is automatically atheistic - wrong - there are many that embrace both evolution and theism.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287367].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

As fine a piece of conspiracy nonsense as I have ever read from you Sal. Devoid of any evidence and constructed entirely out of a supposition. Just one question. What would they all have abandoned their religion for? Darwinism? in some cases centuries after they were dead?

No you just have no grasp of history. Many of them went above and beyond in the expression of their faith that they never needed to in order to keep their heads and many of them had no fear of losing their heads at all.

May we argue that few scientists embrace ID because it would be professional suicide? So we will never know what they would really think? and therefore "We will never know what some of these guys actually knew scientifically or believed religiously because they had to juggle around their statements to stay employed."

?

Now if I say - "just absolute poor poor reasoning assuming a non true faith for all the theists scientist in history" will I hear again about condescension? Alas since I fear not the claims of condescension -

Poor poor reasoning.

BY the way....do you guys know something about the rules of not debating religion on this forum that I don't? Is it that defending theism is what is off the table but attacking theism is? Or isn't it just a general prohibition? Seem many of you who have been around longer think its the former and since you have been longer might even be right. I don't know but no matter what you keep raising the issue.

and for those who think evolution is automatically atheistic - wrong - there are many that embrace both evolution and theism.

Oh for cripes sakes. Didn't you ever go to school Mike?

The fact that religions were commanded in the middle ages in Europe is NOT just supposition, theory, etc. This is general knowledge. The populations worshiped as they were told to. Did you NEVER study the Renaissance and Reformation? Somewhat in earlier ages as well. I believe your own Mesiah was killed for "religious differences" with a king/pharaoh? It still goes on today. You do realize some countries are STILL killing people for being Christian ?

When religion is FORCED - there is no way to know what the person believes in their own head as publicly, they must support the religion it is forbidden to NOT believe in.

My example - Descartes -- go take an epistemology class. Go tell the professors that teach it that they are stupid for saying so.

And stop the personal attacks on me. If you think calling me a conspiracy nut makes you smarter somehow...........you really DO need to go back to school.

And for the record -- you're the dude hammering religion. I never have said either way which is right or wrong - I'm just stating that we can't know what a person actually thought when their "faith" is forced. That's not a religious discussion.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287547].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Oh for cripes sakes. Didn't you ever go to school Mike?

Yes Sal I did. Bravissimo on the condescension. I'll wait with bated breath at the calls for you to tone down your condescension because we all know its not about me opposing a viewpoint you guys don't like but how I do it - right?

The fact that religions were commanded in the middle ages in Europe is NOT just supposition, theory, etc. This is general knowledge. The populations worshiped as they were told to. Did you NEVER study the Renaissance and Reformation?

Did you? Can you follow a point without distorting? the fact that a particular religion was foisted upon people at different times in history in NO WAY WHATSOEVER precludes the general population's belief in God. They WERE Theists as was a vast number of people on the planet outside of the European influence to which you appeal. Africa, Asia every continent filled with theists without threat. The idea that the only reason people believed in God was because they had a musket to their head or a potential guillotine to their neck is babbling nonsense (don't complain - any difference from insinuating I never went to school?) . Its a desperate attempt to rewrite history. You are confusing forced tenets of doctrine within particular versions of theism with general theism in and of itself.

I believe your own Mesiah was killed for "religious differences" with a king/pharaoh? It still goes on today.

No it was neither a king and certainly not a pharoah (several thousand years off I fear). The analogy is a good reference though in that both the persecutor and the persecuted were real genuine theists. Your point is weak no matter how flustered you get. Religion has been maintained in societies that forced certain compliances and those that did not. Even as societies and influences changed theism was still the vast majority position not merely advanced by the point of a sword. Its crazy history rewriting. Fact is, and is accepted by many notable modern atheists, religion was for the greater part of history a defacto position because no strong viable alternative was in place until Darwin (and its dubious that Darwinism erases it logical construction). Unfortunately (well not for me) that fact leaves us with the perhaps infuriating but undeniable historical reality that most of science was founded by theists.

Look I know where this is going. You will argue about religion and I will respond until one of yours turns around and claims I am the one violating board rules by discussing religion or make some other trumped up nonsense like this to initiate a ban

and stop the personal attacks on me. If you think calling me a conspiracy nut makes you smarter somehow...........you really DO need to go back to school.

I never called you a nut ANYWHERE. I referenced your love of conspiracy theories and you yourself have a thread about it right now. Nothing else. You however have gotten very personal as above telling me directly I need to go to school etc because - and lest face it we both know this is the reason - You are livid that your points have been taken apart.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287648].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

And for the record -- you're the dude hammering religion. I never have said either way which is right or wrong - I'm just stating that we can't know what a person actually thought when their "faith" is forced. That's not a religious discussion.

Nonsense Sal when you state

yeah they were - until it was no longer necessary to be faith based to ensure the ruler wouldn't kill you for disbelief.

you are directly stating that they were religious until they were not in fear of their life.

You are bashing hard but trying to claim you are not and YOU most certainly are arguing religion. This has gotten to the point of total dishonesty. Claiming you are just arguing that all their "faith" was forced but not arguing about religion is so paper thin a rolling ant would rip it to shreds.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287662].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Nonsense Sal when you state

you are directly stating that they were religious until they were not in fear of their life.

You are bashing hard but trying to claim you are not and YOU most certainly are arguing religion. This has gotten to the point of total dishonesty. Claiming you are just arguing that all their "faith" was forced but not arguing about religion is so paper thin a rolling ant would rip it to shreds.

You are twisting the hell out of everything I say. I didn't say they ACTUALLY believed the forced faith - they had to at least FAKE it or they'd be killed. We have no way of knowing which of these early scientists actually HELD the faith and which did not. Now stop that crap. It's getting annoying.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287698].message }}

Mike Anthony

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

You are twisting the hell out of everything I say. I didn't say they ACTUALLY believed the forced faith - they had to at least FAKE it or they'd be killed. We have no way of knowing which of these early scientists actually HELD the faith and which did not. Now stop that crap. It's getting annoying.

I am twisting nothing SAL. I know you are not saying they actually believed the forced faith. You can't answer the logic so you are hand waving. We know exactly what they held because

A) they said what they held and many went above what it took to stay alive in declaring their faith.
B) There were no strong viable alternatives to theism at the time
C) They were not all universally under the same pressures and yet they still maintained theism

Your narrative is silly. I am not annoyed but your nonsense is not worth the time. You are attempting to cast a shadow of suspicion over all theist scientists by claiming we cannot know what they really believed in contradiction to what they themselves stated they did. Attempts at rewriting history are total failures in logic.

But go ahead and bounce it around some more

Terra -

there is nothing in your last post even worth responding to (well except your final admission that you consider these forums "our playground"

) but please since Sal has now informed me of your close friendship by PM.perhaps you can kindly inform her that my PM box is my playground as long as I am a member. I asked for no unsolicited PMs.

Enjoy the jungle gyms and the sandox. I'll leave you all in this thread to your various discussions regarding religion and that they most certainly are.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287748].message }}

MissTerraK

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Terra -

there is nothing in your last post even worth responding to (well except your final admission that you consider these forums "our playground"

) but please since Sal has now informed me of your close friendship by PM.perhaps you can kindly inform her that my PM box is my playground as long as I am a member. I asked for no unsolicited PMs.

Enjoy the jungle gyms and the sandox. I'll leave you all in this thread to your various discussions regarding religion and that they most certainly are.

Well, I won't have to inform her since you just did.

By the way, it's not in good form to reveal what others say to you in a PM. The P stands for "private."

I personally think that the discussion about "religion" will stop after you pick yourself up, brush off all of the sand from our sandbox and leave.

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287804].message }}

Mike Anthony 13 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

By the way, it's not in good form to reveal what others say to you in a PM. The P stands for "private."
Terra

not quite logged out yet Terra but no unsolicited PMs do not get privileges. Just letting you know in case you start with that too - and sure of course - I was the one bringing up religion - lol just as I predicted you would eventually claim.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287822].message }}

MissTerraK 13 years ago

Mike,

Just two things.

First, there are some things you really need to learn about yourself. Believe it or not, everyone has blind spots.

Secondly, you need to just get over yourself. Do not think more highly of yourself than you ought. Pssst! That's in the Bible.

Face it, you are not the end all on every single topic in the world although I'm quite confidant you would like to debate that.

And for the record, Sal did not say everyone claimed to be a theist so as not to lead to their head rolling across the floor. She said "some" did and we'll never know their true thoughts.

We will never know what "some" of these guys actually knew scientifically or believed religiously because they had to juggle around their laws to stay safe.

Remember?

Please try to get along with us other kids in the lounge, or leave our playground.

Terra
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287711].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

About to block the first person I ever blocked. Should have known you'd twist a bit of personal info, too.

Frankly - I don't see enough signs of intelligence for you to bother ME anymore either, Mark. I rescind my apology. I really no longer give a rat's ass if I'm rude to you. I will keep what I really think at this point in check "gods" don't hit me with lightning. I will also rescind my atheism when YOU are.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8287782].message }}

Question about evolution....

Trending Topics

" It is what it is" ... overused way too much imo

Do I have to post five times in this section before I can post in other sections?

I'm trying to understand a crawl/indexing issue that has been going on since January.

'Do you remember when' thread ...

What would you do without the Internet ??