GOD

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

This was posted before your tirade, so i'm sure you read it. So why did you repeatedly infer that i was wrong, when I had already admitted my mistake? Self-gratification? Ego? Oh no, it must be that famous atheistic altruism again, huh? It was benefitting everyone else, but not YOU, if you tried to make me look stupid, right? Even though I had already readily admitted my mistake publicly, even though it would have been just as easy for me to 'edit' out that entire post?

 

 

Here you talk again about the altruism, therfore I pose again my question:

 

Originally posted by: sanctus

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only when I am doing something to bring glory to God, not to myself, can I be truly altruistic. That means that all of those 'good' things I do, they have to be only for His honor, not for my pride, or to make me feel better about myself. As a Christian, if I do something for possbile rewards later, then I'm missing the point of bringing glory to Him.

 

 

 

How can you do something only to bring glory to god not to yourself? Tell me just one example, I'm sure if you try analyze any possible example eventually you'll find you do it for yourself.

 

 

By the way you say as well:

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

Only when I am doing something to bring glory to God, not to myself, can I be truly altruistic..

 

 

 

What about if I don't believe in god? Then if you do something for god, you are not doing something altruistic as you do it for an entity that doesn't exist!

 

 

 

Actually, what about IF I BELIEVE IN GOD? Then the only thing to which you can be altruistic is god, where is then the use to mankind of altruism?

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

sanctus, you totally blow me away!! I will gladly admit that your questions are beyond my comprehension, and I will thank you for accepting my "I DOn't Know" as an honest answer.

 

Sorry if I don't accept it, but it is quite fondamental, searching on the net the only english version I found of what I wanted to say is (by the way it's from anthony de mello a priest censured by the vatican):

 

Am I my thoughts, the thoughts that I am thinking? No. Thoughts come and go; I am not my thoughts. Am I my body? They tell us that millions of cells in our body are changed or are renewed every minute, so that by the end of seven years we don't have a single living cell in our body that was there seven years before. Cells come and go. Cells arise and die. But "I" seems to persist. So am I my body? Evidently not.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

Are you suggesting that God started as an explanation by a man searching for a 'truth', and his *mind* invented God as an explanation for everything he didn't understand?

 

Yes, you can also put it this way.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

I could accept this but for a few different things. Mainly, if I were going to invent a god to answer my questions, i would invent one that actually answered all of my questions in a way that was accepted by everyone as valid, leaving NO room for doubt.

 

Do you really believe that you can invent a god, who will be forever accepted by everyone?

Don't you think if it were possible then all différent religions (or some sects) would already have done it?

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

while i might have invented a god with many supernatural powers, as i'm sure i would have wanted my god to be strong and powerful, i would not have invented the God of the Bible.

 

It's quite surprising that you can talk almost against the god in which you believe. I f you say "I would not have invented the god of the bible" that means that you think there could be something better, but god is by definition perfect so there can be nothing better!

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

Why would a man invent a god that would punish sin by eternal damnation, knowing that man sins? Why would man invent a god that gave rules with harsh penalties for disobedience, even though most of the people that were given these rules were guilty of breaking them? Moses was about the only one not breaking the 10C's when he returned from the Mountain. The people still did not all repent. Did man invent the god that gave those 'harsh' laws? WHY?

 

 

This question gives me the opportunity to tell you my interpretation of religion:

the aim of religion is to create a better society ("better" should be understood in the in the subjective values of every society), what's the best can you do for it? Well, making people believe in something, which turns against them if they don't behave well.

This is the reason why I don't believe the bible is something divine, the bible is just a book written by different authors with the aim to create a better society (in their understanding of the word better). If you admit that there were different "philosophes/early sociologues" writing the differant parts of the bible then it shouldn't be any more surprising that there are so many contradictions.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Now let me get this straight, Speciation, a BIOLOGICAL process, is incorrectly defined if we use the "biologic definition"!

 

I mean just how absurd of assertions do you think we will sucker for?

 

I mean, really! Your actually trying to say that BIOLOGY can't provide the most accurate biologic definition of a BIOLOGICAL process!

 

Do you read what you write before you press Reply...?

 

Funny though, when I actually took the time to check your site, then referenced where your own examples were thought to be incorrect according to your very own source,

 

Boy, you don;t stop do you... I didn't reply when you first referenced the site because it was way to obvious that you were struggling unsuccesfully to twist it, you posted:

 

" Part 3 explains the context in which observations of speciation are made. Part 4 looks at the question, "How can we tell when a speciation event has occurred?" Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation."

 

Note the 3 sections I include. Part 3 specifically STATES "observations of speciation". It does NOT say; "False claims of speciation". Part 4 says "when a speciation event has occurred". NOT "IF a CLAIMED speciation event... "

 

Neither of these supports your claim that:

your own examples were thought to be incorrect according to your very own source

 

Now Part 5 DOES say "several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation.". So we have SIX (I only quoted 3) parts involved with the PROOFS of Speciation. In ONE the person compiling the site says there were a number of examples included that HE did not agree with. a LIMITED number out of a LONG LIST is far from the misrepresentation you attempt by CLAIMING (and we all know how much you like to just randomly CLAIM things)

your own examples were thought to be incorrect according to your very own source,

1) they were not MY examples (I have tried to correct you on this before, pay attention)

2) at no time does the site's author even get close to stating that ALL provided (not MY examples) verifyable examples "were thought to be incorrect". But you would not want to be forced to stick to REALITY would you?

 

Yes he thought that some of the xamples did not meet HIS personal evaluation. He did NOT rule out ALL, or say they were NOT examples.

 

Further, he says at the site that the main problems with the Biological Defintion (BSC)...:

2.2 The Biological Species Concept

 

Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

 

is related to PLANTS, and other ASEXUAL taxa. NOT to common bi-sexual reproductive taxa. Such as Fruit Flies. And the only problems dealing with bi-sexual taxa deals with the massive amount of testing needed on a large scale. (Example given a type of fish in 1,000 lakes requiring 60,000,000 to do a complete comprehensive test of ALL of the subjects of that taxa)

 

It NEVER says ANYTHING to denegrade the results of the test when it's results are negative regarding bi-sexual taxa.

you still try to claim that I haven't refuted your claims of speciation

And that is still correct. You haven't.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

BBS's give a written record.

 

What is a BBS?

 

Sorry, showing my age. Before they were called "Discussion Groups" on the Net, they were stand alone Bulletin Boards. I ran a couple myself. Many version of Discussion Group software still call themselves BBS'.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

So explain which is the garbage: your original explanation of the definition (which you knew was questionable at best), your smokescreen (your continued complaints about having to prove what I've said, when you are the one so determined to get proof of things), or your referenced website.

 

I'll take what is behind door number 5. YOUR trying to mislead by attempting to make it look like a comment about a limited number of the examples suddenly being ALL the examples. THAT is the garbage! And your further obfuscation (yes that again, you keep using it, I keep pointing it out) by quoting out of context and not providing the details as to WHY the BSC is not an agreed TEST process in all examples.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

So explain which is the garbage: your original explanation of the definition (which you knew was questionable at best), your smokescreen (your continued complaints about having to prove what I've said, when you are the one so determined to get proof of things), or your referenced website.

 

I'll take what is behind door number 5. YOUR trying to mislead by attempting to make it look like a comment about a limited number of the examples suddenly being ALL the examples. THAT is the garbage! And your further obfuscation (yes that again, you keep using it, I keep pointing it out) by quoting out of context and not providing the details as to WHY the BSC is not an agreed TEST process in all examples.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

This was posted before your tirade, so i'm sure you read it.

 

Yes, it APPEARED before my post, but I have no control over where my post appears. Anything I post in reply will be put AT THE END of ALL OTHER POSTS.

 

All you show is your continued inability to comprehend actual processes. I saw your 1st post and replied to it. It was appended to the end of the list. THEN I saw your NEXT post.

 

So once more we find that what you are SURE about often has no basis in reality.

 

So why did you repeatedly infer that i was wrong, when I had already admitted my mistake?

 

And the only mistake you admitted to was an YOUR confusion over what the TOPIC was.

My original response was based on substituting evolution for speciation

which I did not even respond to!

 

How exactly is this not accepting fault and moving on?

 

Twice now I have had to go back to earlier posts to show how you would lie about your stance by changing it from one post to another. You have NEVER acknowledged them. You continue to randomly "CLAIM" conflicting things based on whichever gives you ANYTHING to cling to at that moment in time.

 

have repeatedly admitted when I made mistakes. What I will not admit to is that your outright lies have any merit. YOU are the one that continually tries to twist words and meanings to benefit you.

ya like when I claimed to have ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL proof of a god, and can;t seem to be able to get it posted. Or when I tried to twist a site's words from a LIMITED number of examples to ALL examples.

 

OPS! Those were YOU, not ME!

The items that i consider proof have been reposted. While checking those posts of mine, did you also find where I called you "lazy"? If so, I'd LOVE to see that one. Your ship is sinking fast, you know.

I TRY to keep up with all replies. Since I seem to be the only one not hyping some religious dogma instead of REALITY and I have to spend a lot of my time going back to find earlier posts to stop others from changing their tune with every song! AND I supply FACTS for my posts (rather than the CLAIMS you so much prefer) it takes a while. And I probably do miss some. In fact there are a couple of questions I have posted that I have yet to see a single response to, and I want to find them.

[IrishEyes]

Ok, I think it's well beyond truce time. You are not an idiot, I don't think you are lazy, I will admit that you are a very intelligent person, and I admire the zeal with which you defend your belief in evolution and your disbelief in God. However, this is really getting silly. Notice the THIS, not YOU.

 

I don't believe in evolution. Yes, i understand that there are many intelligent people that do have faith that evolution is responsible for life. You are included in that group. However, there are also intelligent people that do not accept evolution, and instead believe in a creator.

 

This has changed from a discussion of God to mudslinging. I am guilty of that, as well as you. I'd like for it to stop now. I am not going to post all of the posts I've written that refute your claims in the last few e-mails.

 

I have not responded to every single claim you make, as you have not responded to every claim of mine. As there are almost 30 pages of posts on this thread alone, that would entail me spending all day at my computer, and it's just not possible for me.

 

I'm done arguing with you. I'm done defending myself to you. I'm done listening to you call me a liar. With you, "I will fight no more forever" is going to be my motto. Does this mean that I won't respond to a direct question from you? NO, I will be happy to respond to a direct question. But I will no longer engage in this constant bickering.

[geko]

Ill sum the question up for you irisheyes.

 

Where are

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

...the posts I've written that refute your claims...

 

 

You havent given them

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

A) ....there are many intelligent people that do have faith that evolution is responsible for life.

 

B).....there are also intelligent people that do not accept evolution, and instead believe in a creator.

 

I may be way out of my league here but A) Evolution is an idea arrived at through applying the scientific method to organisms in the world around us (it was first a philosophical musing i think).

 

B) How are these intelligent people coming to this belief? What method of investigation is being applied to this idea?

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker posted a list of examples of speciation taken from this website...

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

 

If anyone has the time, I'd like to hear what you think of the claims made on this site after you have actually read through the site. I'm hypothesizing that there will be many different interpretations of this information.

 

Thank you, Freethinker for that link. It was very informative, and actually quite interesting.

 

If others don't have the time to look at the site, here's the lowdown:

Mr. Boxhorn goes through the many different accepted definitions of a 'species'. He explains why each one is accepted, and sometimes gives faults for each definition.

He goes on to explain why he uses the primary literature for each case, as opposed to reviews. This was actually very informative for me.

Finally, he gets to the specific speciations, and why they are or are not valid, in his opinion. For some cases, his non-validity claims are rather weak. For others, he indicates very strong arguments as to why they should not be considered speciation.

I am not a biologist, botanist, zoologist, entymologist, or other '-ist'. I don't even pretend to understand everything he discusses on this site. But I strongly encourage you guys to check it out sometime and form your own opinions.

[IrishEyes]

by geko...

Where are

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

...the posts I've written that refute your claims...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

You havent given them

 

You are correct, and that was exactly my point. My whole sentence was "I am not going to post all of the posts I've written that refute your claims in the last few e-mails {this should have said "posts" instead of e-mails, sorry}. " After reading the recent posts by Freethinker (Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:38 PM ; Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:52 PM) and the other few that follow MY last barrage of posts, I sat down and angrily started writing up replies to all of his claims. After realizing that I was REACTING to his posts, I stopped typing replies and decided not to post my replies at all. If I had posted them, the arguments would have continued, and I really want them to stop. I'd rather be engaged in a non-hostile dialogue in which ideas can be exchanged, rather than the thinly veiled insults that were being traded.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: geko

Ill sum the question up for you irisheyes.

 

Where are

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

...the posts I've written that refute your claims...

 

You havent given them

 

Boy am I glad to see you here! I am tired of IE always claiming to have posted things that refute the PROOFS I provide when she in fact never has! She says that her CLAIMS are what I should bother with. Obviously not understanding the difference between CLAIMS and PROOF. The difference between verifyable FACTS and personal EXPLANATIONS.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

A) ....there are many intelligent people that do have faith that evolution is responsible for life.

 

B).....there are also intelligent people that do not accept evolution, and instead believe in a creator.

 

I may be way out of my league here but A) Evolution is an idea arrived at through applying the scientific method to organisms in the world around us (it was first a philosophical musing i think).

 

She also fails to understand the difference between FAITH and PROOF.

 

B) How are these intelligent people coming to this belief? What method of investigation is being applied to this idea?

 

"Method" amd "investigation" are not part of their process.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

by geko...

Where are

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

...the posts I've written that refute your claims...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You havent given them

 

You are correct, and that was exactly my point.

 

OK! so your point to claiming that you HAVE posted things that refute my FACTS, is that you HAVEN'T given them! Ya alright then!

I'd rather be engaged in a non-hostile dialogue in which ideas can be exchanged, rather than the thinly veiled insults that were being traded.

 

When I first came to this site I thought it was as promoted, as site for scientific discussion. Instead I waste most of my time trying to get you and others to stop changing your CLAIMS every other post and to post FACTS and stop using fallacies and convolutions.

 

So I adopt my "When in Rome... approach.

 

But you don't like it when the "other side" uses your tactics.

 

You want "a non-hostile dialogue in which ideas can be exchanged"? Then try replying in that manner for a change. Provide FACTS to support the CLAIMS you love to toss out constantly.

 

If you can't PROVE something (such as your continually admitting you have no valid proof for your god) don't waste our time with it.

[Freethinker]

Oh, BTW...

Originally posted by: IrishEyesI don't believe in evolution.

... I don't BELIEVE in Evolution either.

 

I ACCEPT Evolution because it has the greatest amount of evidence to support it as the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth.

[IrishEyes]

 

I may be way out of my league here but A) Evolution is an idea arrived at through applying the scientific method to organisms in the world around us (it was first a philosophical musing i think).

 

B) How are these intelligent people coming to this belief? What method of investigation is being applied to this idea?

 

geko, you are not at all out of your league! I believe your points are valid, and I appreciate that you asked direct questions instead of insulting me and my beliefs.

 

A) I don't know the actualy first person that came up with the theory of evolution (I mean actually thought it up, not wrote and/or published it), but you are probably right in that it was probably a philosophical conclusion.

 

B) Method of investigation? For me, it was examining the 'proofs' of evolution that I was most familiar with. -1-I wanted to SEE the geologic column, as I had often used it as a reference when arguing against creation. I'd studied it, but it was never explicitly explained that the geologic column does not exist intact at any point on earth. It is an abstract idea. That troubled me, since I was looking for solid proof of evolution and using the GC as a proof, but the GC was actually just an abstract idea. How do you apply the scientific method to the abstract idea of the GC? You have to take on faith that the way it is put together represents the actual way it is supposed to be, and that is accepting on faith that someone else is correct. -2- I read what leading scientists had to say about evolution. While many would state in a book or publication that evolution was correct, they often admitted that they were wrong later. If Darwin, as the one of the most noted evolutionists, admits that there is no proof for evolution, and many of his contemporaries also echo this statement, that presents a problem when your (MY) belief of evolution is partially based on their findings. If you believe something because someone that you trust and respect tells you it is true, then later that person says he lied, do you still believe the lie? -3- I think the sheer volume of things that would have to happen correctly in order for abiogenesis to be a valid explanation for the beginning of life is just not possible. -4- Accepting certain scientific principles (HUP for example) requires an enormous amount of faith, it's just faith in 'science' instead of faith in God. I guess it doesn't make sense to me why some will have faith in one (science), but ridicule faith in the other (God). -5- I'm not against SCIENCE. There are inumerble cases of how science has benefitted humanity. I do not dispute this. one of my main arguments is that the 'limit' for what science can explain is always changing, and scientists use this as an argument against God. I don't think the two (God and Science) are mutually exclusive. I do not believe that there will ever be a time that the human race has ALL the answers. I believe that is an impossibility, based on human nature. I think science will continue to answer many questions. However, I do not think that science will ever be able to say for certain how human life began, or how ANY life began. I believe it will always be a theory. My 'theory' is that we were created, based on a lack of definitive scientific proof to the contrary. Yours is probably different, and while I may not agree with yours, I'm not going to call you stupid for holding to your belief in your own theory.

[IrishEyes]

 

Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:13 PM - I don't believe in evolution.

 

I need to clarify this statement. I do not believe (or accept) that evolution is the explanation for human life on earth. I DO believe in evolution, just not as it has been used to explain life in this discussion, and in the scientific community.

[IrishEyes]

sanctus, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your question. i was not intentionally ignoring it.

 

Do you really believe that you can invent a god, who will be forever accepted by everyone?

Don't you think if it were possible then all différent religions (or some sects) would already have done it?

 

That's a great question. I think you may be on to something there. Is it that most religions are founded on the belief that they are totally correct, and their god/gods/ideas will answer all of mankind's questions? Yet that isn't really possbile, is it? To answer all questions from every person for all time? Some where along the line, either somebody's questions are not answered, or faith in a forthcoming answer is involved, right?

 

How can you do something only to bring glory to god not to yourself? Tell me just one example, I'm sure if you try analyze any possible example eventually you'll find you do it for yourself.

 

There are things I do because I am required to legally, such as paying my taxes.

There are things I do because I believe they are right, such as donating my time, energy, and finances to charitable causes.

There are things I do that are for the benefit of others, such as refusing to drive drunk (ok, this is also for my OWN safety ;>P), cooking meals for my family, etc.

 

Then there are things I do to bring glory to God, such as coordinating and leading a Meals-On-Wheels program in my church, volunteering in my church sponsored Family Resource Center to keep teenagers off the streets in my community, and preparing meals at my local homeless shelter. I'm not a selfless person by nature, quite the opposite is true actually. However, I don't do any of those things for my own benefit. Does that mean that I don't enjoy them? Actually, I enjoy them a LOT. But my personal enjoyment is not my motivation. My enjoyment is a by-product of being able to bring glory to Him through my service. If I hated to cook, I would probably find different ways to serve, but I would still serve God in whatever capacity I could. Not because the act of service brings me pleasure (though it normally does), but because I believe I was created to glorify Him, and i will do that in whatever way I can.

 

What about if I don't believe in god? Then if you do something for god, you are not doing something altruistic as you do it for an entity that doesn't exist! ... Actually, what about IF I BELIEVE IN GOD? Then the only thing to which you can be altruistic is god, where is then the use to mankind of altruism?

 

If you don't believe in God, then you wouldn't do something for Him. My statement ("Only when I am doing something to bring glory to God, not to myself, can I be truly altruistic..") was made from my personal standpoint. I'm sorry if I inadvertantly implied this was for everyone. I was speaking about me, IrishEyes, not anyone else. If you believe in God, and you are doing beneficial things to bring glory to Him and not yourself, then your actions fit the definition of altruism as defined by http://www.webster.com (1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others ... 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species). I don't think this imples altruism 'to God', but instead - service to God results in altruism towards others.