Comments
241 - 260 of 283 Comments Last updated Oct 12, 2012

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#262
Sep 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
What history reveals, is that the majority of the founding fathers were Christians. They held church services right in the Capitol. If they weren't Christians, or if they were all deists, this would be highly unlikely.
And then by asserting this, you want to believe that this is a Christian nation where the 10 commandments were used and that this religious freedom gives you christians the right to impose your values onto our secular laws...yeah, I know your gimmick. IT just doesn't work.

YOu have NOT Proven

1). The majority of the founding fathers were Christians.

2). THat the 10 commandments influenced our laws.

3). That you have been given "religious freedom" to impose your religious beliefs on others through the government legal system.

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#263
Sep 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

job wrote:
3. They couldn't agree on doctrine, and so when they held church services Sunday mornings in the Capitol, they utilized different preachers from different denominations. The Bible, however was a unifying theme. I don't think there's much mystery to that. And I think a lot of the references to America being a Christian nation, however that should or shouldn't be worded, is in defense of counter suggestions that there's no connection....

I think you know as well as I do, it's borderline treason among many, conservative 'or' liberal, to suggest anything negative about George Washington. We all tend to want him on our schoolyard basketball team when the team captain chooses the players. That being said, many don't want to place him in the same category of "Christian/Native American Relations". We certainly cannot pin any atrocities on him. But he did strongly 'suggest' that Native Americans should become Christians.
As far as the ill-treatment made by 'unknown' Christians, many could very well have been 'real' Christians. They didn't 'act' Christian, but some (I doubt all) were probably genuine. The man who wrote "Amazing Grace" had slaves 'after' his conversion as the story is told, for 7 years. It took 7 years to finally realize that 'slavery'(New World, Chattel) was 'wrong'.
Still intimating that this is a Christian nation even is no one declared it..and prove that last point about Washington.
OKAY

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#264
Sep 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree (to say the least). But what exactly do you win? A 'cookie'?
HIGH FIVE! After blasting cp, I would say "crumbs".
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#265
Sep 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Nope! Not any more than when New Agers proclaim a call to "harmonize" for world peace. Do you feel imposed upon when New Agers proclaim a global "hummmmming"?
2. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
1. I don't feel imposition, just a really strong urge to laugh.

Now a global hummer...that's got my attention...
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#266
Sep 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they wanted "freedom" of religion. What people can't seem to grasp,

1. is the idea that Christians honor personal choice.

I don't want to force anyone to believe what I believe. Apparently they didn't either.

1. Really? I would have to disagree - most especially today. This might have been true, might be true in the individual case - but as a group, Xtians resist the personal choices of others that conflict with what they think is the right choice. I think abortion is just such a case.

BTW, all of us in some sense do want others to believe as we do. Its pretty natural IMO.
HelloWorld

Irving, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#267
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
The end result of being governed by any supernatural deity is a theocracy.
"government ruled by or subject to religious authority."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracy
This may sound absolutely fantastic to you. However, have you considered what would happen once the science haters, evolution deniers, homophobes, haters of women's rights, etc got control?
You know, people "Native" and all the other nut-jobs fundie Christians posting on Topix? Would you REALLY like to live in the American version of Afghanistan?
Wow, so if i don't agree with the evolutionary theory i'm a science hater? When did questioning a scientific theory become disdain for science? When did that become wrong? I believe that's what you're supposed to do with theories; question them, test them, poke holes in them. Its how better, more accurate theories are born.
Real science doesn't fear alternative theories or "fight" against them, it just lets the best theory win by subjecting them all to constant scrutiny.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#268
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, so if i don't agree with the evolutionary theory i'm a science hater?
No.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
When did questioning a scientific theory become disdain for science?
Do you actually understand what a scientific theory is?
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
When did that become wrong? I believe that's what you're supposed to do with theories; question them, test them, poke holes in them. Its how better, more accurate theories are born.
Correct. However, one has to do this using science, not the supernatural.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Real science doesn't fear alternative theories or "fight" against them, it just lets the best theory win by subjecting them all to constant scrutiny.
Creationism is not science.
HelloWorld

Irving, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually understand what a scientific theory is?
<quoted text>
really? Argue your point, not someone else's knowledge of the subject. This is childish and everyone has Google if you want to know what a scientific theory is.
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. However, one has to do this using science, not the supernatural...Creationism is not science.<quoted text>
I'll agree with you there, creationism is not science, it is either a factual or fictitious event, untestable and incomprehensible by science. I don't think the business of trying to prove creation scientifically is one with an end. What IS science is scrutinizing the currently accepted theory, scientifically, based on observable evidence.

Since we cannot see the completion of a single instance of macroevolution (don't act like you don't know what this means) from one species to another - i.e. it takes millions of years -- it makes the theory of evolution very difficult to approach by observable, reproducible expirimentation. That's my main problem with proponents of the theory who hold it so tightly as truth. The best friend of these proponents is to describe small incremental changes WITHIN a species and try to prove the unprovable by this evidence. Would it hurt to admit there may be problems with the current theory? Or has science finally achieved it's first ever completely correct, immutable theory, which will now be considered infalible...like the Pope?

Please reply without insults, try to keep to the topic being discussed.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#270
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
really? Argue your point, not someone else's knowledge of the subject. This is childish and everyone has Google if you want to know what a scientific theory is.
"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts."

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll agree with you there, creationism is not science, it is either a factual or fictitious event, untestable and incomprehensible by science. I don't think the business of trying to prove creation scientifically is one with an end. What IS science is scrutinizing the currently accepted theory, scientifically, based on observable evidence.
Yet you appear to be using an intelligent design / creationist approach to argue against evolution.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Since we cannot see the completion of a single instance of macroevolution (don't act like you don't know what this means)
I take it you are also going to stop with the insults in your future posts?
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
from one species to another - i.e. it takes millions of years -- it makes the theory of evolution very difficult to approach by observable, reproducible expirimentation. That's my main problem with proponents of the theory who hold it so tightly as truth. The best friend of these proponents is to describe small incremental changes WITHIN a species and try to prove the unprovable by this evidence.
So what is the cut off mechanism for micro evolution? At what point does it kick in? Is natural mutation inhibited somehow? Are parents suddenly prevented from passing on genetic information to their offspring?
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it hurt to admit there may be problems with the current theory?
The theory of gravity attempts to explain the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution. It does not matter if a theory is utterly wrong, partially wrong or totally accurate. The facts will not change.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Or has science finally achieved it's first ever completely correct, immutable theory, which will now be considered infalible...like the Pope?
Every single scientific theory is open to challenge. All the time. They will never be considered infallible. It'e not how science works.
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
Please reply without insults, try to keep to the topic being discussed.
I will reply how I see fit. After all, they are MY posts.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#271
Sep 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Every single scientific theory is open to challenge. All the time. They will never be considered infallible.
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#272
Sep 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory.
It's both. Just like gravity. The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the fact of evolution. Theories can change, facts cannot.
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Many here also believe evolution is unguided.
I don't understand what you mean by unguided.
Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Natural selection, inheritance, etc are all part of the theory of evolution.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#273
Sep 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Just in case you missed it.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts."

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274
Sep 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Scientists always allow for error only "believers" claim absolute inerrant knowlege.

“In everyday usage,‘theory’ often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say,‘I have a theory about why that happened,’ they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.…the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.”– U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration." - Bertrand Russell

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275
Sep 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pilgrim_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Many of the theories have been proven in evolution. It's the progress of the theory and what develops that changes it.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#276
Sep 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of the theories have been proven in evolution. It's the progress of the theory and what develops that changes it.
Many supposed evidences have been found to be either just wrong (Australopithecines) or intentional hoaxes (Piltdown man). I'd like to see what you believe is an example of a proven theory, and what that proof is.
Cheers :)
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#277
Sep 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory....The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past,..." - The Paleontological Society
(representing palentologists from 40 countries)

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..." - Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (the science of the forms of life existing in former geologic periods, as represented by their fossils)

"The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria." - American Anthropological Association

"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" - Brian J. Alters, Chair in Science Education McGill University

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles." - James D. Watson (molecular biologist, geneticist, and zoologist, best known as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA)
FSM

Tarneit, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278
Sep 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pilgrim_ wrote:
Yet we are told repeatedly that evolution is an undisputable fact, not a theory. Many here also believe evolution is unguided. So I guess this is an infallible belief?
Why does evolutionary theory require a deity?

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#279
Sep 27, 2012
 
Hello-World wrote:
<quoted text>
Many supposed evidences have been found to be either just wrong (Australopithecines) or intentional hoaxes (Piltdown man). I'd like to see what you believe is an example of a proven theory, and what that proof is.
Cheers :)
You first...you make a claim these evolutionary theories are false claims not proven. YOu show the evidence. Or admit you're just talking to your preacher man and have no evidence to show.

And where did I say that the theory of evolution has been proven? I said there were proven elements in theory...
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
Sep 27, 2012
 
HelloWorld wrote:
<quoted text>
really? Argue your point, not someone else's knowledge of the subject. This is childish and everyone has Google if you want to know what a scientific theory is.
<quoted text>

1. I'll agree with you there, creationism is not science, it is either a factual or fictitious event, untestable and incomprehensible by science. I don't think the business of trying to prove creation scientifically is one with an end. What IS science is scrutinizing the currently accepted theory, scientifically, based on observable evidence.

Since we cannot see the completion of a single instance of macroevolution (don't act like you don't know what this means) from one species to another - i.e. it takes millions of years -- it makes the theory of evolution very difficult to approach by observable, reproducible expirimentation. That's my main problem with proponents of the theory who hold it so tightly as truth. The best friend of these proponents is to describe small incremental changes WITHIN a species and try to prove the unprovable by this evidence. Would it hurt to admit there may be problems with the current theory? Or has science finally achieved it's first ever completely correct, immutable theory, which will now be considered infalible...like the Pope?
Please reply without insults, try to keep to the topic being discussed.
1. Hello loophole! Hello escape hatch! Make it incomprehensible and jump out of the plane.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#281
Sep 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hello-World wrote:
<quoted text>
Many supposed evidences have been found to be either just wrong (Australopithecines) or intentional hoaxes (Piltdown man). I'd like to see what you believe is an example of a proven theory, and what that proof is.
Cheers :)
While not one single verified proof has ever been provided for your Religious myths. Not one! Faith and anecdotes don't count.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

39 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 4 min Sundog512 10,427
A Message from Nettie 6 min COOTERDOG 796
What do you think about Dollarsbill? 36 min stupid is not a disease 3
If Jesus said few would find the "road that lea... 1 hr stupid is not a disease 311
Why would God allow MH17 to be shot down??? 1 hr blacklagoon 81
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 2 hr Barnsweb 1,702
obama christ! 2 hr stupid is not a disease 6
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 2 hr stupid is not a disease 1,321
WHAT GOD SAID to ME TODAY 3 hr stupid is not a disease 244
•••
•••