|
Post by LauraJean on Jun 27, 2005 13:29:29 GMT -5
It amazes me how people are criticizing Beth for posting some uncomfortable home-truths on this thread, . . . . Beth, I do think that you could be a little less severe with the way you put things across to people. Andy, that's all I see anyone here saying; that there are different ways to say things, some ugly, some kind, some blunt, some pkmtyolpive, and that Beth has chosen ways that aren't as effective as she might want. When you word things in certain ways, the real point of your message gets lost in the personal attacks. If Beth wants to disprove Traf, she can bring her evidence without the name-calling and attacks. That way, we can all examine discuss the differing scientific approaches, rather than wasting time discussing the attacks which are, as we all know, extremely counter-productive. Traf has never, ever said this. He welcomes thoughtful dissent. He has only said that if you have an opinion differing from his, to please bring scientific evidence to support your opinion. I, for one, would be thrilled if anyone would do this. How refreshing to FOCUS ON THE ISSUES! Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 27, 2005 14:26:04 GMT -5
All, It amazes me how people are criticizing Beth for posting some uncomfortable home-truths on this thread, yet don't seem to have a problem with Traffic Demon insisting that only those whom he regards as understanding evolution are entitled to air their views here. Traffic, I don't regard God as being a liar, and therefore regard Genesis 1-11 as being historically true. Yes, I accept that there is such a thing as "figurative truth", but the inappropriate use of the term is unacceptable, and ultimately truth is literal, whether spiritual or physical. Also, I believe in microevolution which occurs within species, but not macroevolution which occurs beyond species. Beth, I do think that you could be a little less severe with the way you put things across to people. God Bless, Andy. Hi Andy! Beth is being criticized from the way she comes across..... As far as her posting "truth".....well, that's truth to what she believes. Ultimate truth is different than opinion. I'm not saying that I am posting ultimate truth either.....everyone has different ideas of what that is TO THEM. (when it comes to religion) However, there are some ultimate truths that cannot be denied..... such as gravity, dimensions, etc. You cannot dispute proof such as bone findings, etc. either.....they are there to look at, see, touch, etc. Hope I explained that well enough..... (insert smiley face...mine don't seem to work right now) LOL
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 27, 2005 14:27:13 GMT -5
It amazes me how people are criticizing Beth for posting some uncomfortable home-truths on this thread, . . . . Beth, I do think that you could be a little less severe with the way you put things across to people. Andy, that's all I see anyone here saying; that there are different ways to say things, some ugly, some kind, some blunt, some pkmtyolpive, and that Beth has chosen ways that aren't as effective as she might want. When you word things in certain ways, the real point of your message gets lost in the personal attacks. If Beth wants to disprove Traf, she can bring her evidence without the name-calling and attacks. That way, we can all examine discuss the differing scientific approaches, rather than wasting time discussing the attacks which are, as we all know, extremely counter-productive. Traf has never, ever said this. He welcomes thoughtful dissent. He has only said that if you have an opinion differing from his, to please bring scientific evidence to support your opinion. I, for one, would be thrilled if anyone would do this. How refreshing to FOCUS ON THE ISSUES! Blessings, LJ Very well said!
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jun 27, 2005 15:07:28 GMT -5
I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 1984 - "It amazes me how people are criticizing Beth for posting some uncomfortable home-truths on this thread, yet don't seem to have a problem with Traffic Demon insisting that only those whom he regards as understanding evolution are entitled to air their views here."
Care to show where I've said anything of the sort? No, you wouldn't, because you don't do evidence. You just show up with whatever claims the seemingly random firings of neurons in your brain have come up with today, spew them forth across the board only to be cleaned up by the truth later, and retreat back into your self-constructed world where your beliefs determine reality. I've never said anything of the sort, regardless of what you might hope to be true.
"Traffic, I don't regard God as being a liar, and therefore regard Genesis 1-11 as being historically true."
Except that you haven't provided a scrap of evidence that indicates that the events described in those chapters actually are meant to be historical. But keep repeating your lies, hoping that if you tell them enough times they'll be believed, and telling yourself that it's ok to lie in God's name. If God is not a liar, then His Word and His Creation must be consistent with one another, and where the evidence is concerned, that means that His Word must be consistent with evolutionary theory.
"Also, I believe in microevolution which occurs within species, but not macroevolution which occurs beyond species."
Why do you not recognize "macroevolution" (which is simply "microevolution" over a longer time scale) to occur when the physical evidence demonstrates that it does? Sorry, believe what you like, but if a belief is inconsistent with reality, then that belief is wrong.
--Traffic Beamon Super King
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2005 6:22:02 GMT -5
I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 1984 - "Traffic, I don't regard God as being a liar, and therefore regard Genesis 1-11 as being historically true."Except that you haven't provided a scrap of evidence that indicates that the events described in those chapters actually are meant to be historical. But keep repeating your lies, hoping that if you tell them enough times they'll be believed, and telling yourself that it's ok to lie in God's name. If God is not a liar, then His Word and His Creation must be consistent with one another, and where the evidence is concerned, that means that His Word must be consistent with evolutionary theory. Me: No. Evolutionary theory must be consistent with what God says, not the other way round. You are right to say that God doesn't lie, so why do you lack confidence in what He says, but have no problem with what the unbelievers say? Are they somehow being more honest than God? "Also, I believe in microevolution which occurs within species, but not macroevolution which occurs beyond species."Why do you not recognize "macroevolution" (which is simply "microevolution" over a longer time scale) to occur when the physical evidence demonstrates that it does? Sorry, believe what you like, but if a belief is inconsistent with reality, then that belief is wrong. Me: A species may adapt to a changing environment over generations, but it doesn't turn into something totally different. Extinction is proof of a species inability to adapt to its changing habitat. God Bless, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jun 28, 2005 8:17:17 GMT -5
For kicks and grins I did the same thing. What a boring site. Nothing but a bunch of cut and paste. Yawn. Have a blessed day, All! LJ
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2005 8:20:56 GMT -5
Okay, you people may be wondering where I'm coming from with regard to "figurative truth". Here's how I look at it:
1. "Figurative truth" is figurative language.
2. Figurative language is the use of everyday examples to convey to an audience deeper, spiritual, truths that can't be physically proved. The evidence is spiritual. It is written.....
3. The use of such examples disguises the spiritual truth that is being shared with the audience. Only the spiritually discerning truly understand what is being said. That is why I call such examples "non-truths", for they are not the spiritual truths they are used to convey.
4. Figurative truths do not describe historical events, even if the physical evidence no longer exists to prove that they happened, e.g. Genesis 1-11. This is where Traffic gets his facts wrong. He rejects what the Bible says.
5. The Christian believes what God says, and He has not said those events are merely "figuratively true". They are not everyday examples and are to do with the beginning of Creation and human history.
6. Ultimately, truth is always literally so, whether it's historical, physical or spiritual. Figurative truths aren't of themselves real. They don't actually exist and have never happened. They are simply metaphors. God Bless, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2005 10:10:16 GMT -5
Traffic,
Can you please explain to me why you are still not addressing me by either my present username or real name? You will do so if you're a Christian. Everyone else does.
Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jun 28, 2005 11:02:44 GMT -5
I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 1984 - "Evolutionary theory must be consistent with what God says, not the other way round."It doesn't matter which you put first, unless God is lying, His Creation and His Word must be consistent with each other. His Creation, through the physical evidence, says that all species share a common ancestry. Our beliefs may either accommodate this reality, or be recognized as false. If you would like to dispute this reality without making a liar out of God, kindly bring your evidence to show that evolutionary theory is not valid. "You are right to say that God doesn't lie, so why do you lack confidence in what He says"I have plenty of conficence in what God says, it is your words that I place no confidence in, since you have proven your dishonesty, ignorance, and unwilling to learn on this topic countless times. "but have no problem with what the unbelievers say? Are they somehow being more honest than God?"Do you realize that by lumping anybody who recognizes evolutionary theory as valid together under the label of unbeliever, you are denying the salvation of millions of your brothers and sisters around the world? So, Nicholas Steno (Niels Stensen), the father of stratigraphy and made a saint by the Catholic church, was an unbeliever? What about Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II, who both recognized that there was no conflict between evolutionary theory and their faith. They both unbelievers as well? What about the various religious leaders who signed these Statements from Religious Organizations, or the (currently) 4801 members of the clergy who have signed An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science? The claim that only "unbelievers" recognize evolutionary theory to be valid is one of the ugliest lies that the creationists use, as it not only falsely portrays the status of the theory, but denies the salvation of millions of their Christian brothers and sisters. "A species may adapt to a changing environment over generations, but it doesn't turn into something totally different."You didn't answer the question, why do you make this claim when the physical evidence demonstrates it to be false. You're lying again. "The use of such examples disguises the spiritual truth that is being shared with the audience. Only the spiritually discerning truly understand what is being said."Then why are "unbelievers" who study the Bible able to recognize such language and understand it? "Figurative truths do not describe historical events"Why not? To use mook2357's example, if I describe last night's storm as "raining cats and dogs," I have just described a historical event using figurative language. You lose again. "even if the physical evidence no longer exists to prove that they happened, e.g. Genesis 1-11."See, it's not just that there's no evidence to demonstrate the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 are historical, there exist countless pieces of evidence which demonstrate that they are not. "This is where Traffic gets his facts wrong. He rejects what the Bible says."No, I reject what you say. Unless you are God, "Can you please explain to me why you are still not addressing me by either my present username or real name?"Because I don't want you to be able to sweep your past dishonesty under the rug. "You will do so if you're a Christian."Oh really? Cite me chapter and verse on that one please, unless you're just setting up another condition on my salvation that isn't in the Bible... --Blood Sugar Sex Traffic Asleep at the Wheel
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2005 12:31:39 GMT -5
I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 1984 - "Evolutionary theory must be consistent with what God says, not the other way round."It doesn't matter which you put first, unless God is lying, His Creation and His Word must be consistent with each other. --Blood Sugar Sex Traffic Asleep at the Wheel Oh it matters, because unless the interpretation of the physical evidence brings evolutionary theory into line with what God says through His written word, it is bogus.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jun 28, 2005 13:01:57 GMT -5
I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 1984 - "Oh it matters, because unless the interpretation of the physical evidence brings evolutionary theory into line with what God says through His written word, it is bogus."
Models are made to describe the observed facts, facts are never molded to suit models. By deciding that the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 must be literal descriptions of historical events before you approach the evidence, you have already abandoned any claim of honesty. If you are to determine reality, you start with the evidence. Period. Only then can you determine whether or not the descriptions of those events can be interpreted literally and remain consistent with reality. But as you've shown us time and time again, you're not after truth.
--TDv2.0 1:4:9
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 30, 2005 5:07:07 GMT -5
Traffic,
You keep believing what you believe and I'll keep believing what I believe, and one day we'll know for sure.
God Bless. Andy
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jun 30, 2005 12:10:31 GMT -5
I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 1984 - " You keep believing what you believe and I'll keep believing what I believe, and one day we'll know for sure."
Thanks to the physical evidence that has been presented, we already know for sure - science has got things pretty much right, and you're incapable of understanding it.
--BDT sparty
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 11, 2005 6:44:02 GMT -5
I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 1984 - " You keep believing what you believe and I'll keep believing what I believe, and one day we'll know for sure."Thanks to the physical evidence that has been presented, we already know for sure - science has got things pretty much right, and you're incapable of understanding it. --BDT sparty I'm still waiting for you to produce the real evidence. Andy.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 11, 2005 9:00:46 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for you to understand the terms of the discussion.
Think about it this way: I come to you and say I am convinced to the core of my being that the world is flat based on this scientific evidence which I then show you. You say to me that I'm wrong and I have to prove it. Does that make sense?
Blessings, LJ
|
|