Originally posted by flyUnityYou're in the Literati Clan and YOU NEVER HEARD of Plato's Republic???😲
question, you keep mentioning the idea that you was raised in a christian school, home, etc. so Heres some questions for you, did you ever consider yourself to be a christian? Do you think a true christian would ever stray from his beliefs? In your opionion is there any such thing as a true christian? and this last question is just out of curiosity, why do ...[text shortened]... asons
EDIT: oh I forgot. I never read that book, is it interesting? I never even heard of it
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by telerionI have read Plato's Allegory of the cave. It would seem evolutionists are te one's chained. Why, because when I have confronted some of your collegues, all I and Djb receive are insults. That is the sign of a closed m ind. Evolution still has to solve the problem of the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian. Fossils that are fully formed and functional without any preceeding forms. Secondly, evolution is not a science because it runs against, the FIRMLY established LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. If you need a refresher on these LAWS, I'll be happy to expound on them when I return to the hotel. I'm in the middle of a chess tournament, so please be patient, last night was very trying, 6 hours of chess, and only a draw.
I guess. Actually I learned all of his lines in my xtian school, so it's more like I've seen it and it isn't all that great.
Ever read Plato's The Republic ? Particularly Book VII with the allegory of the cave. I'd say dj2 is chained and staring at shadows on a cave wall.
Originally posted by PotatoError
dictionary.com
theory
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Originally posted by dj2becker
That still does not make it a fact.
This is splitting hairs now over what is a fact, and what is not. Common descent is considered a fact by the majority of biologists as the level of support for it is so strong. The theoretical parts of evolution are now to do with how evolution works at the genetic level, rather than the fact that it has.
Originally posted by LangtreeSecondly, evolution is not a science because it runs against, the FIRMLY established LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. If you need a refresher on these LAWS, I'll be happy to expound on them when I return to the hotel.
I have read Plato's Allegory of the cave. It would seem evolutionists are te one's chained. Why, because when I have confronted some of your collegues, all I and Djb receive are insults. That is the sign of a closed m ind. Evolution still has to solve the problem of the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian. Fossils that are fully formed and f ...[text shortened]... tournament, so please be patient, last night was very trying, 6 hours of chess, and only a draw.
Please do. You don't know what you're talking about.
Here's a website for those interested in exploring the topic. I am happy to talk about it myself with anyone - especially Langtree.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
originally posted by langtree
Evolution still has to solve the problem of the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian. Fossils that are fully formed and functional without any preceeding forms.
You have made this claim before, and I have already answered that there are preceeding precambrian fossils. You have not addressed my answer but continue to repeat the claim that there are no preceeding forms to cambrian fossils.
originally posted by langtree
Secondly, evolution is not a science because it runs against, the FIRMLY established LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
No it doesn't. If you believe this you simply do not understand the laws of thermodynamics properly. I recommend you read up on the issue of evolution and the 2nd law in more detail before accusing me of being wrong. You could start getting suspicious about the 2nd law argument by realising that there isn't an outcry against evolution from physicists.
originally posted by langtree
Fossils that are fully formed and functional
All creatures will be fully formed, even transitional ones. There is no such thing as a "half formed creature", even according to evolution. An intermediate form between fins and legs for example will not be an unformed fin, or unformed leg - it will be a fully formed appendage in its own right.
did you ever consider yourself to be a christian?
Most definitely. I was very passionate about my walk with Christ. I even took some time off between high school and college to work with Youth With A Mission. We spent 3 months in study and close fellowship with Christ (kinda get away from the hubbub of everyday life and listen for His voice) and 10 weeks out on the mission field.
Note: This isn't a faith vs. works thing. I'm just trying to emphasis that not only did I consider myself a xtian, but I was also "on fire" for Christ.
Do you think a true christian would ever stray from his beliefs?
Most definitely. I know I did. I also know many former xtians, who like myself, really wanted to live the faith. I think the "True Xtian" argument is just an ad hoc cop-out. I find it most interesting that the xtians who knew me during that time in my life never question the sincerity of my faith. They may be bewildered or disappointed with where I'm at now, but they never doubt that I truly believed. It is only people who have had no experience with me that somehow think they know whether I was a real believer or not.
Ironically, most of the deconverted xtians that I know were very sincere and active in their faith. In some ways, I think this strong need for ones faith to be very real can lead one to seriously struggle with the contradictions and difficulties of the faith.
In your opionion is there any such thing as a true christian?
I don't like to use that term. Even when I was a xtian I had some difficulties with it. You see, if straying from Christ meant that you had never truley believed in the first place, then all xtians are in a dilemma. Because of our flesh's tendency to sin, one cannot completely rule out that someday he/she may backslide. If a xtian says that they know that they will never backslide, then they are relying on their flesh and not on Christ, because it is only through Him that we are made strong. Because no xtian can be 100% sure that they will not be one to backslide in the future, he/she can never be certain that he/she is saved in the first place.
I tended to reserve judgement on who was a xtian and who wasn't, figuring that was between God and that person. All I could do was be assured of my own faith and preach and live the Gospel that all might come to repentance.
and this last question is just out of curiosity, why do you write xtian instead of christian? is it because you want to x out christ? or is it more of a time saver? I know people who writes that for both reasons
To be honest, I do it because it's short, because it's habit, and because a lot of xtians do not know that the 'x' stands for Christ and was originally adopted by early xtians. The last reason may be a bit childish (upsetting xtians just so that I can smugly point out that they're the ones who came up with it in the first place), but I do get some pleasure out of it.
Interesting question for all the xtians out there. Would you rather that I type 'xtian' or 'christian' (no capitalization)?
EDIT: oh I forgot. I never read that book, is it interesting? I never even heard of it
To be sure. It's one of Plato's most famous works. When I re-read it a few years ago, I was startled at how similar to those of fairly modern thinkers were some of the arguments presented to Socrates' by other characters.
You apparently did not understand how I was relating to the allegory then. I used to be a YEC like yourself. I sat facing the cave wall. Then I became curious and better educated. I honed my critical thinking skills and began to question my positions on all sorts of issues. I listened to experts defend their acceptance of evolutionary theory. I discovered that a lot of the YEC stuff I'd been taught was hogwash and often purposefully deceptive. Most importantly, I learned that not all evolutionary biologists are willfully disguising the facts in an attempt to deny God. This was like leaving the cave, into the sunlight.
Now I have come back around and am attempting to converse with dj2, who still facing the cave wall, about my experience. He can't fathom it because he can't begin to question his own ideas. He's not at that place yet.
So that's why the allegory fits for me. How do you think it fits for dj2? You really didn't provide a very strong connection there.
Why, because when I have confronted some of your collegues, all I and Djb receive are insults.
It goes both ways. Dj2 has at least as much condescension and arrogance as anyone here.
That is the sign of a closed m ind.
Well than dj2 certainly has one of those. Another sign is never addressing your opponents arguments sincerely. He is a master of this "art."
Evolution still has to solve the problem of the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian. Fossils that are fully formed and functional without any preceeding forms. Secondly, evolution is not a science because it runs against, the FIRMLY established LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. If you need a refresher on these LAWS, I'll be happy to expound on them when I return to the hotel.
First, I don't think I'll need that refresher on the laws of thermodynamics. Hasn't PotatoError already politely responded to your allegation about the Cambrian fossils several times now? I'll leave Cambrian fossils response to some one else, other than to say that there are Pre-Cambrian fossils. Cambrian forms did not explode out of nowhere in the fossil record.
I've encountered the argument from thermodynamics many times (usually it is the second law of thermodynamics that YEC's think is the silver bullet). I'm pretty tired of it though, so again I'll let some one else type up the response.
Good luck with the tourney 😉
Originally posted by telerionWhat is living your faith? Is that for you just obeying some rules, or
[b] did you ever consider yourself to be a christian?
Most definitely. I was very passionate about my walk with Christ. I even took some time off between high school and college to work with Youth With A Mission. We spent 3 months in study and close fellowship with Christ (kinda get away from the hubbub of everyday life and listen for His voice) a ...[text shortened]... f fairly modern thinkers were some of the arguments presented to Socrates' by other characters.[/b]
is there something more that involves Christ himself?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is exactly the response I was trying to avoid by making it clear that it was a walk with Christ. That's why I brought up the faith vs. works deal.
What is living your faith? Is that for you just obeying some rules, or
is there something more that involves Christ himself?
Kelly
It really is amazing that all of the former xtians that I knew never question the sincerity of my faith. In comparison, you know next to nothing about who I was. If you question my faith, claiming that I must have never really known Jesus, then you only indict yourself. I think that I believed as much as anyone could.
Originally posted by telerionPlease I'm not trying to question your sincerity! I will say this about
This is exactly the response I was trying to avoid by making it clear that it was a walk with Christ. That's why I brought up the faith vs. works deal.
It really is amazing that all of the former xtians that I knew never question th ...[text shortened]... indict yourself. I think that I believed as much as anyone could.
you up front, I believe you are an honest person as people go. I have
no doubt you are telling me the truth as you went through it, I am
attempting to see what truth is according to you! I did not grow up in
a church, I didn't enter a church but maybe 3 times my whole life
before I became a Christian, and after I became a Christian it was a
year before I started attending a church. My life as a Christian started
when I was 25 and I want to know what it was you walked away from. I
just want to know if it was I have now, or not.
Kelly
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by PotatoErrorPotatofarmer, the museums of the world are bursting at the seams with fossils, but, no transitionals forms, whatsoever. Science. demands empirical evidence which is still sadly lacking. Evolution, which has been claimed dogmatically by it's adherents, is a speculative discipline. All the latest findings have not added any weight to the favor of evolution. I'll quote you," An unformed fin, or unformed leg-it will be a fully formed appendage in its own right." You are begininng to sound like a CREATIONIST, very good.🙂 I'll be back later, perhaps tomorrow.
originally posted by langtree
Evolution still has to solve the problem of the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian. Fossils that are fully formed and functional without any preceeding forms.
You have made this claim before, and I have already answered that there are preceeding precambrian fossils. You have not addresse ...[text shortened]... not be an unformed fin, or unformed leg - it will be a fully formed appendage in its own right.
Originally posted by LangtreeLemontree, you're sorely mistaken if you think that there is a glut of fossils of all types out there.
Potatofarmer, the museums of the world are bursting at the seams with fossils, but, no transitionals forms, whatsoever. Science. demands empirical evidence which is still sadly lacking. Evolution, which has been claimed dogmatically by it's adherents, is a speculative discipline. All the latest findings have not added any weight to the favor of evolut ...[text shortened]... are begininng to sound like a CREATIONIST, very good.🙂 I'll be back later, perhaps tomorrow.
Originally posted by LangtreeLang, are you an expert in biology? If not, why do you attempt to speak such sweeping authority of the subject? Even the brightest of biologists are cautious when making generalizations of their entire field. If you are so interested in the subject wouldn't it be a better service to yourself to really study the subject before dismissing it? Many thousands of exceptional minds have devoted their lives to advancing study in the field. In the last 150 years all but a tiny percentage of these people have accepted evolution and worked from the theories of the mechanics of evolution to achieve incredible breakthroughs in many different natural sciences.
Potatofarmer, the museums of the world are bursting at the seams with fossils, but, no transitionals forms, whatsoever. Science. demands empirical evidence which is still sadly lacking. Evolution, which has been claimed dogmatically by it's adherents, is a speculative discipline. All the latest findings have not added any weight to the favor of evolut ...[text shortened]... are begininng to sound like a CREATIONIST, very good.🙂 I'll be back later, perhaps tomorrow.
I encourage you to consider a little humility when approaching a body of knowledge that is so extensive and carefully constructed. If you study diligently with a humble acceptance of your ignorance, then you will either become more convinced that evolution never happened, in which case you will only have better reasons for rejecting it, or you will become persuaded, even as the popular ID proponent Behe is, that species have descended with modification for over a billion years, in which case you have self-corrected a previous fallacious position. This is always a good choice set.
Never be afraid to challenge your own ideas sincerely. You have everything to gain by it.