Posted on 09/15/2006 3:39:45 PM PDT by ofwaihhbtn
I saw a few of you try that, so I thought I'd beat you to the punch. LOL
You wanted me to point to negatives in my faith. You picked the wrong tree. Go bark up another one.
The true problem comes in, because there are so many differing churches within Christianity, all with their own particular beliefs, which often are particular only to them...subjects such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, transubstantiation, use of medicines, the trinity, the Rapture, legitimacy of Peter being upon whom the church was built, and on and on are hotly disputed within the Christian community...and evolution versus literal creation versus ID, is another subject that is hotly debated...
I know of no one who speaks for God, who can say with 100 percent truthfullness, that their particular interpretation of the Bible, is what God intended in His meaning...to do so, would be to make the claim, that one speaks for God...
Christians who read the Bible, and try to understand it, will often come to entirely different conclusions regarding the clear intent and meaning of particular Biblical passages...were this not so, we would not have so many differing Christian religions...
You have your interpretations of Biblical scriptural passages, and others will have completely different interpretations of that very same passage....your interpretations suit you in your life, others who have different inerpretations find them suiting for their life...
But none speak for God...and so it goes...everyday, there are more and more independent Christian churches springing up, with their own particular ideas of what the Bible is saying, what it really means...
Evolution is but one subject on which all the various Christian churches disagree...
I wasn't asking for you to point to negatives of your faith, I was asking you to put your faith out of the equation for a little bit.
It should have no effect on your religious beliefs at all to look at it objectively.
You might as well ask me to quit breathing. It ain't going to happen. My thoughts revolve around my faith. What do your thoughts revolve around? Most people who don't believe in the Bible have nothing to stand on but their own ideas and we all know there are billions of those.
The second link says: Bringing up fossil evidence and talking about the supposed absence of relatives without delving into whether it would be even slightly likely that such would be preserved (independent of whether they actually had existed) constitutes the Bermuda Triangle Defense.
This is not a rebuttal, but side stepping Coulters accusiaton. I am not arguing your science, I am questioning the logic. A non-scientist can easily presume there would be fossil remains that would prove evolution. Attacking Coulter or changing the subject doesn't address the central premise Coulter makes, which is no fossil proof. My conclusion is if it's not there, why not?
Here is one example of talking over the head of the casual reader that ends up supporting Coulter..
"Now for an interesting forensic question: were there only just seven Archaeopteryxes alive in all history? Kent Hovind thinks that, as Frank Sonleitner reminded me apropos "Maintaining Creationist Integrity", a criticism of Hovind by fellow creationists at Answers in Genesis."Other creationists (YEC or OEC) have yet to venture an opinion here, nor have any Intelligent Design advocates. But evolutionists would rate the idea as highly unlikely. Even though no fossils exist to prove it, they infer that this earliest known bird had close relations within its genus, and that these had to have had parents..."
This may be totally correct but it fails on two fronts. One, who knows what the heck is being discussed? Secondly, by admitting "Even though no fossils exist to prove it," verifies exactly what Coulter said. Don't get me wrong, this article may be correct. But, how would someone know? The thing goes on and on without addressing the issue Coulter claims and muddies the issue with things not relevant to the argument, IMHO.
I got to your third cite and it did have fossil comments. But, it's too overwhelming and convoluted. As I was reading it, it seemed to prove what Coulter keeps saying. The arguments are personal attacks on the individuals supporting that side of the argument, not the issues at hand.
I have no desire to keep arguing this. Really. I accept people of good faith can agree with either side and someday one side will be proven to be correct. Between now and then I hope to keep learning more about it.
I do believe in intelligent design because it just makes sense. But, I do not disbelieve all of evolution because it makes sense that species evolve over time. Probably, in my mind, to fine tune, improve and refine our existence to be better. The one thing that overwhelmingly supports everything Ann Coulter says is how the pro-evolutionist supporters go nuts attacking intelligent design theory without the proof. Just from what you've referred me to seems to make her point. I can even accept that I'm wrong from what you linked me to. But if so, it is so buried in the muck that few people could decipher it.
PatrickHenry's List-O-Links contains all the information you could want, but you will have to read numerous essays, as not everything is all in one place.
Finally, there is the Index to Creationist Claims which examines each claim made by creationists and provides a rebuttal (there are several hundred numbered claims).
Thanks. I'll look at these tomorrow. I anticipated the reading requirements. I cannot spend years or months doing it but I'll read what I can.
You yourself said you doubted that pearls truly were cast before swine.
Judaism and Christianity! Unless you deny that Samuel's ghost came back from the dead, as in 1 Samuel 28:14-19.
No religion except (insert live or dead religion of your choice here) is based on (the Holy Books of your selected religion).
Also, Christianity believes in a God that is living, whereas many of the others believe in dead people. What kind of faith believes in a dead person?
Also, (insert an important belief of your religion or sect here), whereas many of the others believe something different. What kind of faith believes (insert the beliefs of someone else's religion here, or even the beliefs of another sect of your own religion)?
Do you get the point? Every religious adherent could say essentially the same things about their religion as you have to say about yours.
Down through the millenia untold billions have believed just as fervently in their stories of divine creation and destruction as you do. They were just as certain of their correctness. Logically almost everyone with religious faith down through the ages is definitely deluded, yet they are and have been just as certain as you, in their billions.
Judaism believe in God. Christianity believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. You are so far off base it is a pathetic statement.
How do you determine which history book is correct? How do you determine who is telling the truth in the 9/11 commission? How do you determine which scientific theory is the right one? Everyone has the ability to reject what they consider to be false. Everyone does this every day. So don't make this out to be that religion is the only case where this happens.
So you're saying Samuel's ghost didn't come back from the dead, as stated in 1 Samuel 28:14-19?
I didn't even have to hold my breath very long for the very first personal attack.
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example:
Witness: "I saw X murder the shopkeeper."
Defense attorney: "Isn't it true that you are either ignorant, stupid or insane. Why do you bother the court with this type of tripe?"
Nah, he wouldn't be from an alternative reality if his argument weren't entirely otherworldly.
With discourse like that, bah, you get no credibility from me - not that what I think matters in the least to the credentialed shining beacons of intellect such as Dawkins - since I'm either ignorant, stupid or insane; I'm quite proud of that very special little problem I have there.
Do you often post to people that you're not referring to?
Data! Evidence!
Heinlein said it well:
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.