I always find it rather odd how the masses continue to believe and follow that which is not proven, questionable, under scrutiny (and rightfully so), and yet allow themselves too be duped that a hypothesis is a reality. That a theory is a fact.
It is a message that is pounded into them time and time again without solid consistent evidence and those that continue to question or simply do not accept based on the lack of evidence are made out to be portrayed as archaic stubborn headed dinosaurs who are refusing to accept the obvious. The obvious according to the mainstream doctrinal teachings that is.
The problem is how can it be obvious when based on incomplete and insufficient data that does not allow for scientific conclusion of "absoluteness" and instead requires more "Guesstimation" on percieved probably's? Which in reality is more close to a "maybe" and further away from actuality.
Many of these theoretical "possibilities" that are being espoused as truth claims that, only supposedly intelligently superior human beings are capable of accepting, seem to be missing some of the most vital and crucial ingredients that would not even fly if they were on trial in a court of law.
That being eyewitness accounts.
In fact "eyewitness" accounts, when they have taken place, still had the masses flocking the other direction when the evidence is before them. Take, for example, Planned Parenthood's version of "Safe sex". Throw condoms at kid's and the teenage pregnancy rate's will drop and so will the rate of STD infections. Hmmmmm well, 30 years later we are now dealing with not only a consistent rise in teen pregnancies but also in teen abortions. We have now gone from 2 sexual diseases in the 1960's to almost 30 in the 1990's. A minority of them lifetime and some of those fatal. With the evidence and eyewitness accounts before us....the community of the superiorly intelligent ignore the obvious and throw more condoms at them. After all, "The little darlings are going to do it anyway!" Typical mantra chant of the defeatist attitude. The problem has escalated to gigantic proportions.
(A very sad reality/consequence when "permission" is essentially given to kids by other adults who are NOT the parents)
Of course we can also bring in the never ending debate of the origins into this and the often questionable "science" behind one of the world's most organized religion's with it's policy of narrow minded intolerance towards suggestions of other possible scientific theories. I always thought ALL theories were to be considered "equal" until one was actually proven true.
(Evolution wants you to "believe" that this is your descended late great Uncle Harry)
Then of course there is the latest propaganda spin coming from way out in "Left" field. The "Chicken Little's" featuring Al Gore & David Suzuki co-starring with United Nations IPCC in the latest version of "The sky is falling.....AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!" Apparently, and as is usually the case, very questionable science and shaky theories are to be the only acceptable "truth" by these alarmists that global warming is a man made problem (Yawn!). That is a very interesting position to take when considering the cold weather and large amounts of snowfall that has been received in the past month.
In fact this time last year (the week between April 1-7, 2006) the average temperature on my side of the world was averaging between 3 and 8 degrees Celsius which is quite normal for that time of year. I had already been riding my motorcycle for a week and a half at that time. Same time only move forward to 2007 and the temperatures this past week, one year later, have hovered between -14 to as low as -29 with lot's of snow and ice left to melt. In one year the tempature difference was as much as 37 degrees Celsius. As I type this we are dipping down too -14 tonite. Last year, again, our high was +10. Nice call Al & Dave. Keep cranking out the BS!
(Behind my house last week and...)
(Ice jams on the Red river nearby where the spring thaw froze up and caused this mess. Global warming could have avoided this!!!)
But people still tend gobble it all up. Mind boggling. People "believe" evolution with out ever giving an eyewitness testimony of ever seeing it actually take place. They believe that sex is safe even when they do witness the destructiveness it can have when one is promiscuously abusive with it. They believe global warming is man made without ever seeing the verifiable science to support it.
And yet just over 2,000 years ago a man was buried in a sealed tomb under protective custody of the Roman Empire upon the request of the Religious zealots who wanted to ensure the body was not stolen under cover of night so His followers could not make radical claims about him. It was not a matter of His body going missing that trouble these individuals. It was what actually took place 3 days later that they were afraid of. He rose from the dead not by way of passed on legends or fairy tales. If that were the case there would be so much more to speculate on. Instead He was witnessed alive and well roaming the land of Israel clearly displaying His defeat over death and the grave. This miraculous event was "eye" witnessed by over 500 people over a 40 day period. Yet today many do not believe them. 30 more witnessed His ascension into Heaven.
(The risen Saviour and Redeemer of mankind. Jesus Christ the Lord of Heaven and of Earth. The Alpha and the Omega. The First and the Last. Amen)
Eye witness testimonies do not seem to hold as much water as speculative, unproven, never before seen footage. Many would rather believe and accept that which was never witnessed. It would appear many try to simply avoid the real truth. Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, has risen indeed. Happy Easter!
Until next time...
35 comments:
I don't know where to begin disagreeing with this one so just wishing you a Happy Easter will have to do. Don't eat too much chocolate.
Happy Easter to you too Lucy.
I know I was all over the map on this one and there really was no intent to spark debate on every topic I raised. There was an underlying point that was summed up in the end.
The bottom line was the true meaning and acceptance of the Easter message.
BTW I won't be induldgin in the chocolate (sniffle, it's my absolute favourite sweet to eat) The Doctor just informed me a few weeks ago that my cholesterol level was too high. No sugar, fats, or salts. Why bother living anymore? LOL
On the plus side I will lose weight which I know I could stand to lose. In 3 months time if my levels are down I am going to award my self with one day of chocolate gourging :)
Hey TIO!
I have yet to read the entry in its entirety, so will be back to bother you again soon with a proper comment...
Just had to say "woah!", cos your latest entry has the exact same title as mine... caused me to double take!
Anyway, totally useless comment... but will make up for it later, God-willing!
Take care & have a good (calorie-free) holiday!
iM
P.S., i've moved!.
Would you mind awfully if i tagged you old boy? As a biker i KNOW you must have some cracking songs tucked away in your 'best songs' locker.
Hi iM,
"Just had to say "woah!", cos your latest entry has the exact same title as mine... caused me to double take!"
LOL. That is bizarre.
"Take care & have a good (calorie-free) holiday!"
Thank you. I have been for the last two and a half weeks. I hope to make this a more permenant lifestyle. That way when I eventually do have a "treat" of chocolate it will be that much sweeter.
P.S., i've moved!.
Again? Now cut that out! Can't you just sit still? :)
Lucy,
"Would you mind awfully if i tagged you old boy?"
Now this could be your Britsh slang or I am too tired after the night shift to know....what exactly are asking me here?
And "Old boy"? I'm 37 sister and just how old might you be? ;)
Lucy,
LOL (just a little red faced) I guess I should have went to your website BEFORE I asked the question. I get it now.
Thanks for the tag. I would love to play. Do I put this in the form of post? If so I will post in the next few days. ANNND Thanks for the dubious honor.
What about UFO's, alien life, ghosts, bigfoot, etc. etc... ? There's LOTS of eyewitness accounts for those... your thoughts?
Mandora,
Excellent question BUT one I was anticipating from somebody. Once again, you have not let me down girl :)
First I will dismiss Bigfoot. There are far too "Few" eyewitness" accounts with many of them turning out to be hoaxes. Secondly, I believe it was just a few weeks ago where yet another Bigfoot sighting was caught on tape. Yet it only resembled the image we are familiar with in the original video of the 70's (which has now been verified as a hoax by the individual who shot the footage). Anyway, it was another grainy, shaky, very hard to see, thru the tree's shot.
You would think with today's technology they could have gotten a far better shot then that with features such as "Auto focus" & "shake elimination" not mention ZOOM! capabilities. With our satellite eye in the sky technology that can zoom in on your undergarments while you run the trash out to the bin never seems to cathc these creatures on it's big brother survelliance of the planet. I am quite sure if these creatures excisited it would have had to have eventually caught far more clearer images of them. Especially when those who do believe in their excistence make the claims that they number in the hundreds of thousands. It would be too difficult to conceal that many without far more sightings with footage. Thus far, in my opinion, He does not excist.
UFO's, for the most part, are usually identified after many sightings. Some times it is unfamiliar aircraft, meteor entering the atmosphere, a satellelite catching the glare of the sun, etc.
However, that does NOT mean there are no excistence of "Alien" life forms. I am in agreement with you that there are simply far too many eyewitness accounts to verify that there is other life out there.
I, however, would look at from a different perspective then many. That, of course, being the Christian perspective.
In the Bible it tells us that "In the last days" there will be signs and wonders in the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. There will also be signs in the heavens that, if possible, would decieve even the elect (Christians). It goes on tell about a great deception that would come upon the world to further lure it away from a belief in God.
Too be quite up front with you, I notice that every description of an Alien is almost the same. Yet there are some similiarities regarding arms and legs, two eyes, a mouth, etc. Yet they seem to have a "Mind power" an have often left the victims of their temporary kidnappings quite traumatized. I believe that Aliens are of a demonic nature whose sole purpose is too do the will of Satan by decieving the nations AND instill Fear! Which is the nature of the Devil. They are creepy looking and, at least to us, appear somewhat deformed, which would fall in line with the reality that when they were cast out of Heaven their "angelic" beauty faded. I know this may sound corny to you but as a Christian it actually makes perfect sense to me.
Ghosts, I believe, are spirits BUT I do not believe them to be of a "Lost" soul of an individual. The Bible clearly states that once a person dies they are either in Heaven with the Lord or in Hell awaiting final judgement. They cannot simply come and go at will.
Again they are demonic in nature. Another one of Satan's great tactics is to "decieve". What better way then to take the place of a loved one and draw that person into communicating "with the dead" when he knows full well that the scriptures declare that it is forbidden.
So to make my short answer long I do agree that the these "entities" excist BUT most likely not from the same perspective that you may.
If I confused you, feel free to dig deeper :)
oops, sorry. It seems that my attempt at humour fell flat on its bum at two sites. I really should stop being so English when dealing with non-Europeans.
And i am 38 now so respect your elders young man!!
Aliens and ghosts are demonic?
You sure you didn't take up rum when you gave up chocolate?
Too bad the stories of Christ's eyewitnesses can't be corroborated or investigated to see if they hold any more water that those of the Bigfoot sighters. Way too bad that Christ only "appeared" to those who wished for it, and not to disinterested parties.
Life w/o chocolate isn't any longer. It just SEEMS that way! ;)
Belated Happy Find the Bunny Day.
I got a new tat for the occasion...sort of.
Karen,
Well I must say I have missed your "wit".
"Aliens and ghosts are demonic?"
Regardless of which perspective you look at it from the bottom line is they are still "Alien" in every sense of the word.
If one believe's in "Ghost's" I am by far not disagreeing. I believe they do excist. (Remeber The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?) What I do not believe is that ghost's are spirit's of the dead lost in transition. I do believe they are in fact demonic. Likewise with space Aliens.
Atheist, Christian, or other faith alike do not deny "Aliens". We just have differng views on their "origins".
"You sure you didn't take up rum when you gave up chocolate?"
Karen (waggin finger) your displaying your atheist arrogance. That's mighty intolerant of you ;)
BTW, this July 20th I will commerate my 10th anniversary of being drug and alcohol free. So the Rum factor is out. Heck I can't even enjoy a hard shot of coca cola these days.
"Too bad the stories of Christ's eyewitnesses can't be corroborated or investigated to see if they hold any more water that those of the Bigfoot sighters.
Apples and Oranges here. Many Big foot tales have been verified as hoax's. Camera shot's are always lousy and their is often and convientley only one or two people who see the creature.
A lot of Paul's writings were corrorborated with some of those eyewitness's that you dismiss.
Christ appeared to over 500 people at once. Are you trying to tell me that 500, who do not all know one another, just grouped together to fabricate a story that has miraculously managed to remain inact for the last 2 millenia? 500 liars? Even the Easter bunny and Santa Claus stories have changed many times over in the last 100 years.
The resurecction has always remained consistently the same.
Eye witness's say that Jesse James was shot in the back long before my time but I wasn't around to see it so should I consider it a false testimony?
"Way too bad that Christ only "appeared" to those who wished for it,"
Really? Because I don't believe that Paul was wishing for that while he was heading down the road to Damascus to slaughter more Christians. It did not seem to prevent Christ from appearing to him.
"Life w/o chocolate isn't any longer. It just SEEMS that way! ;)"
It is so! (sniffle)
"I got a new tat for the occasion...sort of. "
How does one "sort of" get a tattoo?
TIO
I don't believe in ghosts, though it would be fun to be able to. As for demonic, that implies evil. What is evil about them, or aliens for that matter? Aliens are just someone/something different, not necessarily evil.
Congrats on your 10 years of sobriety!
Apples and Oranges here. Many Big foot tales have been verified as hoax's.
I'm just sayin'...if the technology had been available, the Jesus sightings probably could have been verified as hoaxes also. Or mass hysteria in the case of the 500.
"Wishing" for a sighting was a poor choice of words. I should have said
"Inclined towards seeing" or something similar.
The resurecction has always remained consistently the same.
And who knows if there were contradictory accounts syphoned out at the Council of Nicea. You only know what that group of men decided was fit for you to know. And that's only one part of the editing of the book you rely so heavily upon.
Eye witness's say that Jesse James was shot in the back long before my time but I wasn't around to see it so should I consider it a false testimony?
If those eyewitness testimonies weren't recorded until decades or centuries after the fact, then you should take them with a grain of salt. Especially if there is no physical forensic evidence to back it up. If an eyewitness is no longer alive to be questioned about his/her testimony, it is only heresay.
How does one "sort of" get a tattoo?
The 'sort of' was about for the occasion. I didn't really get it because it was easter. The timing just happened to coincide.
It was the weekend before, actually.
TIO,
Just because 'some' bigfoot sightings have been verified as hoaxes, doens't make their existance any less possible. How do you explain that for centuries (millenia even) people the world over have documented (through pictures and words and stories) creatures that all resemble bigfoot? Hoaxers 2000 years ago? And also, a LOT of people probably see this/these thing/s and don't come forward because they're afraid of being called crazy and accused of lieing. I know if I saw one, even though I fully believe they exist, I wouldn't bring it to the authorities. I'd sit at home, content in the knowledge that I KNEW the truth.
I've done a LOT of research on the bigfoot phenomenon, partly because it interests me as an anthropologist, and partly because I just find the unknown fascinating. I have, independantly, objectively, and scientifically, come to the conclusion that there is SOMETHING out there causing these sightings, SOMETHING that we've not documented.
I'm not sure how much time you've spent in the forests of northern ontario, but I have spent a LOT of time there, and I can tell you that if something with a consciousness REALLY didn't want to be found, it wouldn't. Skeptics like to say that bears are huge creatures that don't like contact with man, and we see them all the time. The difference is, in my opinion, that if bigfoot is a humanoid creature (or even as intellegent as other great apes) the boreal forests of northern north america provide ample opportunity for them to stay (mostly) hidden. They know the terrain, we don't. Not difficult to stay hidden in this sort of an environment, especially when you have the upper hand and the capability of rational thought.
Karen,
Sorry for the delayed response.
"As for demonic, that implies evil. What is evil about them, or aliens for that matter?"
Yes I agree it implies evil. That was an intentional statement. In all the "alien" encounters you have read or heard when has someone ever come forward and told of how wonderful their experience was. In fact, it is often quite the opposite. They are often left feeling quite traumatized and terrorized. That, too me, represent some of the main ingredients of evil.
"Congrats on your 10 years of sobriety!"
"If those eyewitness testimonies weren't recorded until decades or centuries after the fact, then you should take them with a grain of salt."
Ahhh but they were recorded by the witness's. Matthew, Mark, and John all walked with Christ. Luke, on the other hand, did not and yet even his writings were consistent with the other three. Let's also not forget about Peter who was there thru it all. These eyewitness accounts were not written decades later by individuals who DID NOT see. It is rather presumptuous for one to simply discredit them as liars or fable tellers especially when Christ's very existence is scrutinized. Even those who wanted him dead (Romans & Pharisee's) acknowledged him thru census and historical documentation.
"I didn't really get it because it was easter. The timing just happened to coincide."
So you did get one. I am anticipating my next photo!!!
Karen,
Whoops! I noticed I put nothing under your congrats on my upcoming 10th anniversary. I meant to extend my thank you for the encouragment :)
Mandora,
You actualy leave much to address but I want to hone in on something particualar that I find challenges the validity of their excistence. That is going back to my original statement that about the claim that they number in the hundreds of thousands.
A few in hiding? Or even a few hundred? Certainly possible. (BTW I do not completely rule out their excisitence I simply have not been convinced of it thus far) BUT Hundreds of thousands?
This is where you and I dig our feet in. Sightings would be far more frequent. Todays world is one big eyeball that, unless one lives underground never too surface, is just too hard to escape.
First, so, don't accept the few hundred thousand hypothesis. It IS just that, a hypothesis, and is in no way the only number thrown around by scientists and researchers on the subject. I agree that those types of population numbers are a bit sketchy.
However, I don't agree that they'd be seen necessarily. We don't watch all surfaces of uninhabited forests. We can't... satellites can't penetrate the tree cover, and there's no WAY that people on the ground can possibly find animals in such terrain that are intellegent and don't want to be found. We've never had an exbidition large enough or well equipted enough to even scratch the surface.
Mandora,
"there's no WAY that people on the ground can possibly find animals in such terrain that are intellegent and don't want to be found."
They don't shave! Just how intelligent could they be? :)))
TIO
They are often left feeling quite traumatized and terrorized. That, too me, represent some of the main ingredients of evil.
So you actually lend creedence to these reports of alien abduction? I'm not saying the folks weren't traumatized, but I seriously doubt it was by little grey beings with big oval eyes.
These eyewitness accounts were not written decades later by individuals who DID NOT see.
Awww...I don't wanna go into that again. How come it took THEM so long to write it down themselves then? How do you know they didn't get together and get the story straight before they put it to parchment? Why were there no objective stories of even the crucifiction if it was so important?
I am anticipating my next photo!!!
Well, it may take a while. It's still healing. Then we have to wait for my son to bring his good camera home from college, take a pic, AND download it to my 'puter. And he and I are both such terrible procrastinators!
But I'll warn ya when I'm going to send it. It's a flower bracelet around my wrist.
Oh, and it's too cold where he lives for Bigfoot to shave.
Karen,
So you actually lend creedence to these reports of alien abduction?
I never denied them. I simply have a different perspective. One may believe the are JUST other beings from a far away galaxy. I believe they are, in fact, demonic deception.
That being said, that does not mean I simply accept every abduction story at face value. They must be received on an individual basis. While some are hoax's or fables I believe there are also some very legitimate ones. There is far too many sightings and abduction testimonies for every single on e other too be lies.
How come it took THEM so long to write it down themselves then?
How many people today do you know of who experienced something "phenomal" in their lives and sat down to write a book about it the following week? I think it would be more then fair to suggest that many who write books, even today, regarding a spectacular event in their lives never write about it until years later. That is not uncommon in human nature.
How do you know they didn't get together and get the story straight before they put it to parchment?
Rhetorical question. How do you know they did?
Why were there no objective stories of even the crucifixion if it was so important?
Because distorted Liberal media bias did not exist then :)
Oh, and it's too cold where he lives for Bigfoot to shave.
Interesting thought considering many of those who "investigate" his supposed habitat are often wearing t-shirts, shorts, and a sun hat in their TV documentaries ;)
I will anxiously await your next photo.
How much can we actually "just know"?
tio
Sorry for the delay.
I believe they are, in fact, demonic deception.
Ay caramba! Do you look under your bed for the boogey man too?
Hey, Chuck Norris joke: When the Boogey Man goes to sleep at night, he looks under his bed for Chuck Norris.
How many people today do you know of who experienced something "phenomal" in their lives and sat down to write a book about it the following week? I think it would be more then fair to suggest that many who write books, even today, regarding a spectacular event in their lives never write about it until years later.
Most people will take at least notes in a journal within a short time period, if not immediately, especially if they plan to write extensively about it later.
But wait 30-40 years? And still expect to get all the facts and details correct? About something so huge that it defies anything that's ever come before?
Interesting thought considering many of those who "investigate" his supposed habitat are often wearing t-shirts, shorts, and a sun hat in their TV documentaries ;)
What do you expect poor Bigfoot to do? Shave off his hair in the shape of a tshirt and bermuda shorts, for comfort in the summer months? Next thing ya know, Lady Bigfoot will be expected to shave her legs and underarms! ;)
TIO:
500 witnesses? I can't believe this worn-out canard is still being used.
Simple enough. Name them all. Otherwise, this is hearsay.
Of course we can also bring in the never ending debate of the origins into this and the often questionable "science" behind one of the world's most organized religion's with it's policy of narrow minded intolerance towards suggestions of other possible scientific theories.
ROFLMAO!
I can't believe you're still on this bandwagon.
Here, I'll clarify:
A. evolution is the backbone of biology,
B. there's quite a bit more evidence for this 'religion' than there is for the specific 1 you worship, &
C. it ain't a religion by any stretch of the imagination.
I always thought ALL theories were to be considered "equal" until one was actually proven true.
What is it I always say? "Science: not a democracy."
You don't get to play 'eenie-meenie-minie-moe' w/science.
I'd suggest you don't avail yourself of any of the contributions of evolutionary 'theory' as there'd be an ethical conflict, but you usually don't listen anywhoways.
Congrats on the 10 year mark, BTW.
Karen,
Ay caramba! Do you look under your bed for the boogey man too?
Karen dearest, you are mocking me.
Hey, Chuck Norris joke: When the Boogey Man goes to sleep at night, he looks under his bed for Chuck Norris.
Mocking The Man! borders on a form of blasphemy ;) NEVER mock the "Lone Wolf" Texas Ranger!!!
Most people will take at least notes in a journal within a short time period, if not immediately, especially if they plan to write extensively about it later.
Who is to say they didn't?
But wait 30-40 years? And still expect to get all the facts and details correct?
Many have written books in our time on historical figures long gone. Yet quite often they are accepted as an accurate account of the "individuals" life. They (the authors) were not even around to witness the events of their lives. They base their writings on historical eyewitness accounts.
What do you expect poor Bigfoot to do? Shave off his hair in the shape of a tshirt and bermuda shorts, for comfort in the summer months? Next thing ya know, Lady Bigfoot will be expected to shave her legs and underarms! ;)
Actually yes I would. However they would be definitely accepted in Europe as is!
KA,
Nice to see you again old friend
500 witnesses? I can't believe this worn-out canard is still being used.
Simple enough. Name them all. Otherwise, this is hearsay.
You haven't lost your touch. Once again placing the burden of proof on me. Actually I could name a number of them of which I expect you to refute. I.E. What's the point?
I suppose if I could name them ALL you would also be in a position to produce your eyewitness accounts of the origins as well as ALL them buried transitional fossils that are about as visible as Iraq's WMD? :)
I can't believe you're still on this bandwagon.
Hmmmm why not? Your still on yours! I still read your blog when time allows.
it ain't a religion by any stretch of the imagination.
A matter of opinion.
1.) There is a "Prophet" (Chucky Darwin) and his bible (The origin of the species)
2.) A statement of faith (you will call it theory and rationalize it as scientific "fact")
3.) A following of people who will vehemently/passionately defend it's teachings even when contradiction is displayed and lack of evidence seems to be "something not yet discovered" (we are radical fundamentalists when we defend ours)
4.) "Faith" is a mandatory requirement in order to accept "possibilities/probabilities" of what "might have/most likely" had happened based on hypothesis, converted into theory, and taught as reality!
5.) This teaching demands a strict adherence to deny God at ALL costs no matter how intricate the evidence of design may play into it (DNA, RNA, impossibilities of evolution on a macro level) In other words, your religion purposefully leads away from God while mine leads to Him.
6.) A mission statement that says "We must never stop until we can prove this and win as many converts as we can".
7.) Disciplinary action for rebellion. We call it sin. But you cannot deny the harsh ostracization of well intentioned, credible scientists who simply can no longer support this theory. The back biting that goes on within the science community to literally crucify one of their own for not adhering to "the teachings" by renouncing anything they have to contribute to outright slamming their credibility for not bending is also a testimony of "towing the party line" of the faithful masses. One does not commit scientific adultery by daring to consider another possibility or alternative to that of the teachings of the great prophet Chucky.
I am sure you can do your own spin and play on my words but at the end of the day ALL people worship something or someone. Worship is a deeply held belief that "you are correct" on what you believe to be true. Evolution has "evidences" that have lead you to accept it as the only means to the origins. Even in it's continued incompleteness. There is no other word for it. That requires a level of faith.
I'd suggest you don't avail yourself of any of the contributions of evolutionary 'theory' as there'd be an ethical conflict, but you usually don't listen anywhoways.
LOL. Not true. I have told you in the past that I respect your intellect and I do listen. What I do not do is agree. Remember I used to sit on your side of the fence. 'Been there done that". Evolution, with it's inconsistencies (and they are there and you know it), does not add up. Does it occur? Yes, I have agreed that it occurs within micro levels. That is irrefutable. Does it occur on the macro level to the point of chimp/ape to man? The mathematical/scientific probabilities say even today that it is impossible. Biologically speaking. But I have noticed that it is science you will discredit.
Hand four paleontologists a jaw bone that is dated to be tens of thousands of years old and they will all reconstruct something different from it. Anywhere between a reptile, to a carnivore, to a deep sea fish, to a dinosaur bird. All theories based on probabilities. All fascinating to explore but nothing, to date, that is 100% conclusive. That only leaves "Faith" that it happened.
Congrats on the 10 year mark, BTW.
Thank you it is quite the milestone. In my BC years a week off the narcotics and booze was considered a lifetime for me. BTW I am coming up on the mark. I have not officially hit yet. July 20 is the day.
TIO:
Nice to see you again old friend
Hey, sorry haven’t been around lately.
I suppose if I could name them ALL you would also be in a position to produce your eyewitness accounts of the origins as well as ALL them buried transitional fossils that are about as visible as Iraq's WMD? :)
Oh, now, first off, I could give you 17 of them, just for arguments’ sake. Still 483 to account for. 2nd, of course there aren’t any ‘eyewitness’ accounts for the primordial soup, 3rd off, there’s bundles of transitional fossils.
It’s all about having an open mind.
Hmmmm why not? Your still on yours! I still read your blog when time allows.
You should drop by more often.
A matter of opinion.
Matter of fact.
1.) There is a "Prophet" (Chucky Darwin) and his bible (The origin of the species)
Darwin wasn’t a ‘prophet’ in any sense of the definition, & his ‘bible’ is a pretty hard read. Mostly because it’s composed of observed phenomenon.
2.) A statement of faith (you will call it theory and rationalize it as scientific "fact")
It’s actually a catalogue of natural observations, use of induction & deduction.
3.) A following of people who will vehemently/passionately defend it's teachings even when contradiction is displayed and lack of evidence seems to be "something not yet discovered" (we are radical fundamentalists when we defend ours)
& the gaps close inexorably, rendering cries ‘contradiction!’ & ‘lack of evidence’ futile.
4.) "Faith" is a mandatory requirement in order to accept "possibilities/probabilities" of what "might have/most likely" had happened based on hypothesis, converted into theory, and taught as reality!
No, “Confidence” is the word I’d use. Do you understand how to use logic at all?
5.) This teaching demands a strict adherence to deny God at ALL costs no matter how intricate the evidence of design may play into it (DNA, RNA, impossibilities of evolution on a macro level) In other words, your religion purposefully leads away from God while mine leads to Him.
Okay, still not a religion. Haven’t I bopped you multiple times w/examples of theists who SUPPORT the ToE?
It ain’t about gawd.
6.) A mission statement that says "We must never stop until we can prove this and win as many converts as we can".
This is just getting sillier by the moment.
7.) Disciplinary action for rebellion. We call it sin. But you cannot deny the harsh ostracization of well intentioned, credible scientists who simply can no longer support this theory. The back biting that goes on within the science community to literally crucify one of their own for not adhering to "the teachings" by renouncing anything they have to contribute to outright slamming their credibility for not bending is also a testimony of "towing the party line" of the faithful masses. One does not commit scientific adultery by daring to consider another possibility or alternative to that of the teachings of the great prophet Chucky.
This is trite, & I expected better from you. ‘Credible scientists’? Who? I know the names, but these guys are a far cry from scientists, let alone credible ones. Behe’s about the closest they’ll ever have to a real biologist in their midst.
Really, a tu quoque. Along w/poison the well.
I am sure you can do your own spin and play on my words but at the end of the day ALL people worship something or someone. Worship is a deeply held belief that "you are correct" on what you believe to be true. Evolution has "evidences" that have lead you to accept it as the only means to the origins. Even in it's continued incompleteness. There is no other word for it. That requires a level of faith.
It’s not ‘faith’ in the religious sense. It’s an explanation that excludes the supernatural, that’s all.
LOL. Not true. I have told you in the past that I respect your intellect and I do listen. What I do not do is agree. Remember I used to sit on your side of the fence. 'Been there done that". Evolution, with it's inconsistencies (and they are there and you know it), does not add up. Does it occur? Yes, I have agreed that it occurs within micro levels. That is irrefutable. Does it occur on the macro level to the point of chimp/ape to man? The mathematical/scientific probabilities say even today that it is impossible. Biologically speaking. But I have noticed that it is science you will discredit.
I’d like those figures, if you please. Sources, etc.
It’s compounded simplicity. It took millions of years, is all.
I always wonder at that ‘your side of the fence’ canard. You just accepted it, w/o understanding it? I’m not taking a cheap shot at your background here, but you hardly strike me as someone who’s terribly interested in science.
Hand four paleontologists a jaw bone that is dated to be tens of thousands of years old and they will all reconstruct something different from it. Anywhere between a reptile, to a carnivore, to a deep sea fish, to a dinosaur bird. All theories based on probabilities. All fascinating to explore but nothing, to date, that is 100% conclusive. That only leaves "Faith" that it happened.
This demand for certitude is…infuriating at best. The processes of scientific investigation rarely posit anything w/100% accuracy. I’d like to see these ‘4 paleontologists’ examples, please. You realize that forensic science is a lot farther along than a few smock coats taking wild guesses, don’t you? 10’s of 1000’s of years old? I’ll require proof, please.
Thank you it is quite the milestone. In my BC years a week off the narcotics and booze was considered a lifetime for me. BTW I am coming up on the mark. I have not officially hit yet. July 20 is the day.
Stay clean & sober, mein freund.
How does that old Van Halen song go? Something along the lines of seeing lots of friends go down the toilet, something like that.
"Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love" - Van Halen
"I been to the edge,
An' there I stood an' looked down
You know I lost a lot of friends there baby,
I got no time to mess around"
That line always makes me think about buddies who spiraled outta control.
Oh read this - it's a transcript from Kitzmiller v. Dover, & it ties the claims against macroevolution into gnarled knots.
TIO
I'd like to interrupt the dialogue and our own discussion to ask you how your cholesterol is doing. Have you been back to the doc to have it rechecked yet? How's that awful "no good stuff" diet going?
(Diet and exercise alone didn't do the job for me. I had to go on meds. I take Vytorin and it's done wonders at getting my cholesterol under control.)
Karen,
Thanks for the concern.
I have not yet been back to the Doc for more blood tests. He wanted to give it three months so I will know more by the end of June.
The "diet" is not as bad as I thought. There is still alot of food I can eat that I was not aware of. I am more prone now too reading labels and I have eliminated salt, sugar, and margerine/butter from the dinner table.
I drink my coffee black or with a fat free cream, no cakes and cookies, eat cereal plain, and likewise with all the other foods that I used to lather in butter, salts and spices. That was actually what turned out to be my biggest problem. Not what I was eating but what I was putting on it!
My excercise will begin to pick up more (I hope) now that I quit my job and took one ( at a pay cut) that does not require shift work so my evenings are freed up to go for walks.
All in all I do feel better. I do not bother weighing myself but I have already gone down three notches in my belt and my shirts are starting to hang off me.
I kid my wife that I am now "sexy skinny"! Although I think I still have a ways to go.
Thanks for thinking of me. I will update you when I know more.
TIO:
I am more prone now too reading labels and I have eliminated salt, sugar, and margerine/butter from the dinner table.
Yeah, 1 of those old age things. Reading labels, popping vitamins, air bubbles & ointments: all indicative of getting older.
KA,
Darwin wasn’t a ‘prophet’ in any sense of the definition, & his ‘bible’ is a pretty hard read. Mostly because it’s composed of observed phenomenon.
To some degree your supporting my analogy. First, some wopuld argue that the Bible is also a hard read. Second, those who believe in God base their awe and wonder of creation as observed phenomenon as well. In fact some atheist evolutionists, thru observation, converted to believers in God because of the science. For example, Allan Rex Sandage, stated when he "Came out" of athiesm:
"It was my science that drove me too the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science,....It was only thru the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."
Now granted he was/is a Cosmologist BUT their science also heavily studies the "Origins" only from a Universal perspective.
My point here is that science, at times, has lead even the most devout atheist towards God thru, as you say, observed phenomenon.
No, “Confidence” is the word I’d use.
LOL. Now if I said that from my end of the perspective you would verbally spank me for doing a play on words!
Okay, still not a religion. Haven’t I bopped you multiple times w/examples of theists who SUPPORT the ToE? It ain’t about gawd.
By "gawd" I assume you are referring to my version of "God". Haven't I bopped you over the head enough times that when I question the validity of ToE it is the science I scrutinize. Atheists bring God into the equation far more then I do!
The "religion" comparison is fair. One does not have to believe in an entity to be a "religious" person. What they have to be is a devout follower of their chosen teaching. This could include addicts who attend an alcoholic/cocaine's anonymous gatherings faithfully every Thursday evening for fellowship and affirmation.
This is just getting sillier by the moment.
And rhetorical. The way you tend to view people of my ilk are the same way I look at yours, although I do my best not to be negative towards them. I do admit my sarcasm though. You would most likely view the "religious" as actively seeking recruitment as I would in the world of the atheist. Silly or accurate observation?
It’s not ‘faith’ in the religious sense.
It's still Faith. A belief in that which is unseen or unproven. As far as "religious" is concerned, I would argue that I too am not a "religious" person. That word is tied too "organized/institutionalized" factions centered around Biblical teachings (and Yes, some that contradict the Bible) where the message is lost. I do not consider myself religious (as you already know) yet many tie that word too me as a Christian thereby misappropriating the meaning. Therefore, I tend to "throw it back" at others for essentially doing the same thing that "religion" requires.
It took millions of years, is all.
I would like those figures, facts, and sources...if you please :)
you hardly strike me as someone who’s terribly interested in science.
I will concede, in comparison to yourself, no I am not as interested. BUT I still enjoy reading a good book on it and surfing the net. I do have Christian friends, very intelligent individuals, who have differing opinions as to evolution/creationism or creationism thru evolution. Both sides give excellent arguments but the evolution argument comes across less convincing.
This demand for certitude is…infuriating at best.
Really? Because you demand it all the time.
Stay clean & sober, mein freund.
Plan on it. Another lyric for ya:
I've been thru hell and I never going back!
Motley Crue "Dancing on glass"
To some degree your supporting my analogy. First, some would argue that the Bible is also a hard read. Second, those who believe in God base their awe and wonder of creation as observed phenomenon as well. In fact some atheist evolutionists, thru observation, converted to believers in God because of the science. For example, Allan Rex Sandage, stated when he "Came out" of athiesm:
Now granted he was/is a Cosmologist BUT their science also heavily studies the "Origins" only from a Universal perspective.
My point here is that science, at times, has lead even the most devout atheist towards God thru, as you say, observed phenomenon.
Well, that’s 1 guy for the record. Source of quote?
I note that Sandage, BTW, is by no means a Young Earther. Is he Mormon?
LOL. Now if I said that from my end of the perspective you would verbally spank me for doing a play on words!
No I wouldn’t. You must have me confused w/some other liberal. Homey don’t play that.
By "gawd" I assume you are referring to my version of "God"
Yes.
Haven't I bopped you over the head enough times that when I question the validity of ToE it is the science I scrutinize. Atheists bring God into the equation far more then I do!
Excuse me, but you went on this long, ridiculous rant about how evolution is some form of religion. It somewhat becomes a ‘religious’ debate. You’re just another nay-sayer from a long line of folks dating back to 1859, who’ve tried to punch holes in the science (failing miserably, I might add).
The "religion" comparison is fair. One does not have to believe in an entity to be a "religious" person. What they have to be is a devout follower of their chosen teaching. This could include addicts who attend an alcoholic/cocaine's anonymous gatherings faithfully every Thursday evening for fellowship and affirmation.
You’re projecting here. “I am, ergo you are the same.” Not always true.
And rhetorical. The way you tend to view people of my ilk are the same way I look at yours, although I do my best not to be negative towards them. I do admit my sarcasm though. You would most likely view the "religious" as actively seeking recruitment as I would in the world of the atheist. Silly or accurate observation?
Nobody’s ‘recruiting’ into the ‘religion’ of evolution. That’s just ridiculous. The only reason anyone gets up in arms, is that some fringe group is trying to foist their religious beliefs onto the rest of us.
It's still Faith. A belief in that which is unseen or unproven. As far as "religious" is concerned, I would argue that I too am not a "religious" person. That word is tied too "organized/institutionalized" factions centered around Biblical teachings (and Yes, some that contradict the Bible) where the message is lost. I do not consider myself religious (as you already know) yet many tie that word to me as a Christian thereby misappropriating the meaning. Therefore, I tend to "throw it back" at others for essentially doing the same thing that "religion" requires.
So…it’s “I know you are, but what am I?” No, it’s neither unseen or unproven. I’ve corrected your mistake about macroevolution vs. microevolution (I thought you were listening? Don’t seem that way.)
I would like those figures, facts, and sources...if you please :)
Sure. Talkorigins.org, for starters. Ken Miller’s blasting of ID, for another. I’ve given you multiple links in the past. Just search your archives.
I will concede, in comparison to yourself, no I am not as interested. BUT I still enjoy reading a good book on it and surfing the net. I do have Christian friends, very intelligent individuals, who have differing opinions as to evolution/creationism or creationism thru evolution. Both sides give excellent arguments but the evolution argument comes across less convincing.
Creationism? Convincing arguments? Are you kidding me? That’s a new 1. Young earthers are lost out in left field in la-la land.
Really? Because you demand it all the time.
When you declare there’s some omnipotent, omnibenevolent unseen dictator who watches over every little thing we do, I’m gonna have to demand some kind of proof, outside of Aesop’s fables from an era where records were notoriously corrupt.
In fact some atheist evolutionists, thru observation, converted to believers in God because of the science.
Yeah, don't be shy about name-dropping, here.
Post a Comment