Doesnt matter. It is still just a belief. Religous or not. Science or not. Still does not make it true. My opinion though is someone has to have faith in it to believe in it.Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
People forcing their belefs on others has happened way too much. So called Christians are some of the worst but so are the Evolutionists. I cant see why Evolutionists and Athiests want to take away the one thing that keeps alot of us going. HOPE. With that said I cant stand the actions of some of the so called Christians. Some of them in the past had murdered others because they did not share their beliefs. They enslaved other races because they thought the white race was Gods chosen ones. But what it all boils down too alot of people claiming to be Christians use God as an excuse for their actions to make it right. They can do that all they want but it does not make it right. One good example is the events leading up to the Cherokees Trail of Tears.
Read here on how Andrew Jackson used Christianity to get what he wanted.
""Andrew Jackson's Second Annual Message
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.
What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?
The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.
And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.""
The Cherokee was the most civilzed tribe of all then. They had Christian Churches,Schools, and even their own Constitution but were still called savages so that the whites could steal the Cherokee lands. The part where Jackson said "[Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions.]" really sickens me. His ancestors were not forced to leave the lands they so loved.
Enough ranting from me.
Doesnt matter. It is still just a belief. Religous or not. Science or not. Still does not make it true. My opinion though is someone has to have faith in it to believe in it.
So, according to that train of thought, because we can't see atoms...we are relying on "faith" to know it's the building block of all things...because we can't see dinosaurs, they never existed etc? That's silly. I think before we understand where we came from we need to know more about where we are...and if the universe was a beach, we would have explored one grain of sand up to this point. Science and faith are 2 different things. Science has concrete evidence supporting theory..religion has nothing but faith. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it kinda kills your argument on this topic.
That's the thing...I don't think he's "arguing" anything here. It's his belief based on faith. It's not up to you or me to tell him he's wrong. It's his viewpoint based on what he's seen/known/learned/believes.Not saying that's a bad thing, but it kinda kills your argument on this topic.
I don't agree with his POV--my viewpoint on evolution tends more towards the science and less towards the faith, but also against the fallacies that Gotch has pointed out on here regarding those that are pro-evolution. However, I'm not sitting here typing up how dumb he is for his viewpoint because of this piece of evidence that I think is credible, but may not even apply to him, and so on and so forth.
What's the big threat here? I mean, why can't Burton believe what he wants to, Jason what he wants, Gotch what he wants, etc...people are so offended when people aren't "like-minded". Seems the only time I ever heard that term was from the pulpit. Different does not equal bad. Just different.
[U][COLOR=#22229c][IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/btketron/miami-med.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/btketron/nohokie-med.gif[/IMG][/COLOR][/U]
[U][COLOR=#22229c][IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/btketron/Funny/owmyballs.gif[/IMG][/COLOR][/U]
What does seeing dinosaurs and atoms have to do with evolution? What I am saying is you would have to have faith in Evolution to believe in it. Show me concrete evidence that we evolved from monkies.
Some Science is fact but I dont believe Evolution is fact. I do agree that Science and Faith is two different things.
[QUOTE=CoeburnCane;1776666]What's the big threat here? I mean, why can't Burton believe what he wants to, Jason what he wants, Gotch what he wants, etc...people are so offended when people aren't "like-minded". Seems the only time I ever heard that term was from the pulpit. Different does not equal bad. Just different. QUOTE]
Exactly!
I never said we evolved from monkeys...but there is more evidence to substantiate that than there is that we sprang up in a garden, were fooled by a snake, and sent packing. I never said you were wrong cuz really, I don't know where we came from. And, I really don't care where we came from cuz long after we are all gone people will still be trying to find the answer to that question. We will never know for sure how we ended up here or why we ended up here. Scientists will say we came from the sea and evolved, preachers will say god made everything in 7 days and left Adam in the garden of Eden...my point is...who cares? IMO, Neither will ever be proven and folks will argue this topic from now on. IMO, you have to come to your own peace with the whole thing. To each his own.
Agreed....
?To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.?
St. Thomas Aquinas
"No, actually I believe it's from Bobby Henderson and only nominally connected to the Kansas debate because that is when he started the whole juvenile thing, and it's intent is to provoke, that was the intent from the start."
It wasn't juvenile at all. It was a good argument against ID and it being taught in schools. Since IDers couldn't - or wouldn't - explain anything about this "Designer", he did. And the IDers argument of allowing it and evolution to be taught equally in schools. Good quote from him....
I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. - Henderson
Its a good argument, because ID has little scientific evidence to back it up.
"You clearly lack a grasp of the subject if you believe ID is restricted to the Discovery Institute. Many who hold some degree of ID leanings are afraid to utter it. Why? Look at the reaction on this thread for a clue. Why face the ridicule and possible black balling. Instead of open discussion evolutionists prefer their way or the highway, no room for open debate."
Okay, well lets see all the publishing that aren't from Discovery? I believe that what you said might be the case, but not by that many. If it is the case with a lot of them, then that's their own fault. Darwin took a lot crap and he succeeded, not a real excuse IMO. It's because the facts/evidence is lacking big time is why it isn't accepted...and that means the whole community for the most part rejects it as science. I don't think the Evolutionists are a big bully and scares IDers away, the facts of Evolution do that.
"Most beneficial mutations are only nominally so."
Positive mutations often get a different word attached to them "Adaptation" which is ultimately the same thing.
"Yep, that was the "Foundation for Thought and Ethics", had zippo to do with the current ID movement."
Wasn't it a textbook for High School students about ID? You said they don't want it taught in schools, but looks like they do...that's why I brought that up.
"That concerned creationism, not even true ID? What's up with your sources?"
It did. But that sparked the whole ID movement in 88? or 87? when that case occurred. The movement just happened to be the same time as the big "Evangelical boom" in the 80's. It was created to try and put it beside the teaching of evolution in the classroom because they knew they couldn't just teach "Adam and Eve"...it's creationism dressed up as science, but it failed because it has little facts/evidence to back it up.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks