Thanks

[david]

Quote

I'm sure Derrin Brown could pass himself off as the second coming. What he does is to demonstrate how easy it is for humans to be duped, and of course he freely admits that what he is doing is just understanding how people's minds work better than the owners of those minds do.

–stu

Yes, derran is good at what he does, deceiving people and he has a charm to him.
Now, if he could just arrange to be born in the right place at the right time…

Scientists as a group are fairly easy to deceive with psychological principles. They're always looking for the complex answer, the mirrors or lasers. The answer is usually much more simple–the magician lied to you and turned the box around when you weren't looking. But nobody wants that to be the answer. They want the complex answer.
The smarter the person should be, the harder it is to accept that they were duped. Pride tends to come with intelligence. So if told that derran brown uses standard magicians practices and dresses them up (rather than using NLP or advanced pyschological techniques) is unnacceptable. Of course, he sometimes does do this, when he claims he's not. And vice versa.

I guess the point I was on my way to make, is that smart people are just as easily taken in as the small minded. Harry Anderson (another magician) once said that small children and animals are the hardest to fool (with sleight of hand.) He was correct. They are not used to normal every day actions so these cannot be used against them.

The smart ones, the worldly wise, have gained all this knowledge. Yet, they are deceived, just the same.

The Bible says satan is “misleading the entire inhabited earth” (rev 12) and that he has the “whole world in his power.”

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2007,06:36)

Hi Stu, It was actually John who wrote the words inspired by the Spirit of God. 1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. But if you do not know the Spirit of God you cannot perceive the beauty of inspired scripture nor have any clue of the ways of our God. But best to respect others than judge them for what you cannot see-unless you can see everything.

It is always appropriate to be respectful of a person's right to hold the views that they do, and I agree that many, if not most people have things going on behind the scenes that make a fuller picture of the person and their joys and struggles in life.

When it come to the subject of religious belief, there is a social tabu that such beliefs are not discussed in anything more than a polite and non-commital way.

If christianity was a philosophy that christians held with good humour and goodwill toward others (and no doubt many do) then it might be less appropriate to challenge it. However, I think religious belief has earned no respect. If the words you and Paul and John (and Ringo and George?) have put into his mouth are anything to go by, then Jesus proclaimed himself political to a large extent and we are discussing political ideology. Such ideas must be open to the most robust discussion, especially when believers are willing to lie about science which clearly sees more about the material universe than all the vicars priests and ministers added together. The debate is not about the people primarily, it is about their political vision for the world. I for one find the christian worldview depressing and not suitable for children, and oppose the march of the religious because all I can see them offering the world is delusion.

I cannot see everything but you claim to know a being that does, and you claim to be able to communicate in some way with him. So shall the next topic be hypocrisy?

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi David

Quote

Scientists as a group are fairly easy to deceive with psychological principles. They're always looking for the complex answer, the mirrors or lasers. The answer is usually much more simple–the magician lied to you and turned the box around when you weren't looking. But nobody wants that to be the answer. They want the complex answer.

I disagree. I think you have fundamentally misjudged the motivation of those who attend magic shows, and of scientists too. Audiences know they are being deceived, and want the deception to have the cleverness of simplicity. Scientists also seek simplicity. Just look at the race for the GUT in physics.

The simple answer is not that the magician can actually do magic, although the christian answer is that the magician can do magic, to judge by the reaction to Harry Potter and other fantasy stories that are taken seriously by some christians. It is actually the devout who don’t realise they are being led up the garden path, and when someone points it out to them they become defensive. Look around this forum for all the evidence you need of that.

Quote

The smarter the person should be, the harder it is to accept that they were duped. Pride tends to come with intelligence. So if told that derran brown uses standard magicians practices and dresses them up (rather than using NLP or advanced pyschological techniques) is unnacceptable. Of course, he sometimes does do this, when he claims he's not. And vice versa.

Again, that is not my experience. Those who have made up their minds despite their ignorance are the ones who resist being told of their deception. A true scientist can come to a provisional conclusion, while leaving the way open to other possibilities as evidence grows. A faith-based life that excludes the scientific method provides no defence against deception.

Quote

I guess the point I was on my way to make, is that smart people are just as easily taken in as the small minded. Harry Anderson (another magician) once said that small children and animals are the hardest to fool (with sleight of hand.) He was correct. They are not used to normal every day actions so these cannot be used against them.

Maybe that is why 65% of young people are agnostic or atheist.

Quote

The Bible says satan is “misleading the entire inhabited earth” (rev 12) and that he has the “whole world in his power.”

Which is not a good advertisement for an omnipotent god.

Stuart

[david]

Quote

Audiences know they are being deceived, and want the deception to have the cleverness of simplicity.

Yes, they do want a clever simple answer, but when asked, they always think the answer is difficult. If I'm watching a magic trick, I first watch it for the simple feeling of wonder it creates, as you speak of. Then, I de-construct it, because I must know the answer. Once you peel back the layers, you can never go back to that sence of mystery. Yes, I know the motivation of those who watch magic shows. But my point was that that while they WANT it to be a clever simple solution, they tend to believe it is not. They cannot fathom being fooled by something so simple. Their reaction is universally the same: “Oh, is that all it is.”

Truthfully, the magic happens in their head. People have this habit of seeing not what is there, but what they are told. And many see what they want to see or even what they are told they must see.

Either the world is suffering from a mass delusion that God exists or it is suffering from a mass delusion that evolution is true.
But it is obvious from this that people and in fact the majority of them can be just plain wrong, deceived, taken in, fooled.

I still can't get over the fact that 40% of scientists say they believe in God.

[Stu]

Hi David

Quote

Either the world is suffering from a mass delusion that God exists or it is suffering from a mass delusion that evolution is true. But it is obvious from this that people and in fact the majority of them can be just plain wrong, deceived, taken in, fooled.

Delusion is possible in both cases, but is temporary for scientists. For the religious the only real cure is apostasy, an option that seems popular like no other time in recent history. If you think evolution is a delusion then you have to ask who is doing the deluding. Is it a deity who has laid out a fossil record that makes it look just like mutation and random selection have given us a variety of species? I think the two are not comparable, because science does not guarantee that it has the right answer. Science does promise to change if it is demonstrated to be wrong; religion has no mechanism for coherent change if it is wrong, in fact when christian mythology is shown to be wrong historically or physically, those so deluded still cling to the tenets. If you turn up to a biology department with your fact that disproves evolution they should take you seriously if you have a serious point to make. If a biologist turns up to a prayer meeting and takes on the ones who are denying evolution, would he or she be invited to stay and explain the objection? Which is the genuine delusion and which is the genuine attempt to explain the world, no matter what the answer?

It is an important aside that creationists rarely turn up to university biology departments. If they are the brave communicators of god’s truth, why do they only preach to the converted in church halls, and attempt to speak to schoolchildren in schools?

Quote

I still can't get over the fact that 40% of scientists say they believe in God.

Yes but what god to they believe in? Only 4% believe in biblical creationism, so 36% certainly are not the kind you see here. I find it hard to believe too, except we do know that religions have refined their powers of deception over the centuries. The default position, the one we are born with, is atheism. That overwhelmingly lasts into adolescence. What happens then? Do people attain some sort of belief or pretense to it because they think they should? Because they think it is the best way for their children to ‘learn morality’? Because they like the rites of passage offered by a church, even though they have to pretend they believe? The pressure brought to bear through family? There are very many unhappy closet atheists who have to keep up the pretense of belief because their families expect it, sometimes on pain of rejection from the family home. Then there is the powerful Catholic doctrine of guilt, but that’s a whole other thread!

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
The ways of God are through His Spirit in the words of the bible and in His reborn people. That Spirit always produces a response according to the person and their personal god.

Those who are chosen receive the revelation of the Spirit of God freely and welcome it openly knowing that they have heard from the heart of the God of heaven and earth.

Those who are servants of the god of this world hate and reject the words and the people of God. They are offended and repelled by the presence of the Spirit of God -humanly inexplicable- and they show their loyalties and choose and sadly predict their own fate.

[Morningstar]

Quote (david @ Dec. 14 2007,17:16)

Quote Audiences know they are being deceived, and want the deception to have the cleverness of simplicity. Yes, they do want a clever simple answer, but when asked, they always think the answer is difficult.  If I'm watching a magic trick, I first watch it for the simple feeling of wonder it creates, as you speak of.  Then, I de-construct it, because I must know the answer.  Once you peel back the layers, you can never go back to that sence of mystery.  Yes, I know the motivation of those who watch magic shows.  But my point was that that while they WANT it to be a clever simple solution, they tend to believe it is not.  They cannot fathom being fooled by something so simple.  Their reaction is universally the same: “Oh, is that all it is.” Truthfully, the magic happens in their head.  People have this habit of seeing not what is there, but what they are told.  And many see what they want to see or even what they are told they must see. Either the world is suffering from a mass delusion that God exists or it is suffering from a mass delusion that evolution is true. But it is obvious from this that people and in fact the majority of them can be just plain wrong, deceived, taken in, fooled. I still can't get over the fact that 40% of scientists say they believe in God.

Why is it said, “Evolution vs. God”

Isn't it possible “both” are true?

Is this a matter of the literalness of Genesis 1 & 2?

Read these words carefully and open your mind to the possibility they both are true.

Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,

Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature

Let the earth bring forth the living creature

[david]

Quote

Delusion is possible in both cases, but is temporary for scientists.

Yes, I agree. They will eventually figure it out. Margarine is better. No, butter is. No, margarine. No, butter.
Eventually, scientists do find the proof or disproof for their beliefs. I agree.

Quote

If you think evolution is a delusion then you have to ask who is doing the deluding. Is it a deity who has laid out a fossil record that makes it look just like mutation and random selection have given us a variety of species?

I'm starting to think that if you actually attempted to make your case, instead of repeating your mantra…

Besides the horse with the extra toe and of different size, what actual proof…
Do you have a list somewhere of why specifically scientists believe in evolution, perhaps in order from most persuasive to least. You have to understand, people just aren't willing to jump, to take that leap of faith.

Of course we know that the “kinds” of the genesis account have a great variety. The dog (wolf) kind–labra doodle, pit bull, etc; the cat kind–bobcat, leopard, cheetah, housecat, etc.
Again, the Bible isn't a science book. There were less variety of animals back then, sure.
You say that scientists correct their mistakes in light of new information. Well, perhaps those who actually follow the Bible do to. In the past, one might have looked at the variety of animals and not knowing any better, presumed that the house cat was one kind and the bob cat another kind. But upon new information, their assumptions were wrong–they both come from the same cat. Yet, the Bible wasn't wrong, their assumptions were.

So, if you could prove that one kind of animal has actually turned into another kind of animal–connect two species that aren't in the same family, that would be persuasive evidence.

[david]

Quote

religion has no mechanism for coherent change if it is wrong, in fact when christian mythology is shown to be wrong historically or physically, those so deluded still cling to the tenets.

Stu,
Here's the problem. Christendom does not represent the Bible. The Bible in fact says that there would be many false Christians. It speaks of true worship and false. It says there would be many saying “lord lord” who actually were not friends of the lord. It says many would have a form of godly devotion but prove false to it's power.
So, yes, many stumble blindly and do not teach correct things. Many hold to tradition, cling to it. But this isn't the Bible's fault. Jesus said that it was by their tradition that many made the word of God invalid.
We must distinguish between what the Bible says and what Christendom says or does. The Bible even says that because of the loose conduct of many of the false disciples, the way (Christianity) would be spoken of badly.

Quote

If you turn up to a biology department with your fact that disproves evolution they should take you seriously if you have a serious point to make. If a biologist turns up to a prayer meeting and takes on the ones who are denying evolution, would he or she be invited to stay and explain the objection?

We would explain why we believe he is wrong. At the very least, he would be taken seriously and we would try to help him. And if I went to the biology departement, I can't see them taking me seriously in the slightest.

Quote

It is an important aside that creationists rarely turn up to university biology departments. If they are the brave communicators of god’s truth, why do they only preach to the converted in church halls, and attempt to speak to schoolchildren in schools?

Again, you are lumping the good in with the bad. Jesus fortold a worldwide preaching work in the last days. (mat 24:14) He told his disciples to go and make other disciples. (Mat 28;19,20) And Jesus true followers do do this. But of course, most do not. Most, ring their bells and will talk to you if you bring something up, but won't make the effort to actually go out and talk to people.
It's only fair that people be warned and at the same time, be told the good news of the kingdom, and how it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms (or governments) Dan 2:44. And God is using his people to do this. Whether they listen or refrain, the message is going out, regardless, in hundreds of lands, in hundreds of languages.

Quote

Only 4% believe in biblical creationism, so 36% certainly are not the kind you see here. I find it hard to believe too, except we do know that religions have refined their powers of deception over the centuries.

So, great masses of scientists can be decieved and go on deceiving each other, and also true, most religion is bad and does deceive people. That is why God has promised to destroy it. I agree with you on both these points.

Quote

Only 4% believe in biblical creationism, so 36% certainly are not the kind you see here. I find it hard to believe too, except we do know that religions have refined their powers of deception over the centuries. The default position, the one we are born with, is atheism. That overwhelmingly lasts into adolescence. What happens then? Do people attain some sort of belief or pretense to it because they think they should? Because they think it is the best way for their children to ‘learn morality’? Because they like the rites of passage offered by a church, even though they have to pretend they believe? The pressure brought to bear through family? There are very many unhappy closet atheists who have to keep up the pretense of belief because their families expect it, sometimes on pain of rejection from the family home. Then there is the powerful Catholic doctrine of guilt, but that’s a whole other thread!

I would have thought scientists as a group would have been way more disciplined than this. But I guess you would know better. They give in to “pressure.” You say from family. I also believe from their peers.

david

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
psst.
Don't tell anyone but David believes only the JWs fulfill all these claims of righteousness.

[Stu]

Hi Nick

Quote

Those who are servants of the god of this world hate and reject the words and the people of God. They are offended and repelled by the presence of the Spirit of God -humanly inexplicable- and they show their loyalties and choose and sadly predict their own fate.

If you mean atheists (the people who have no god, not even this ‘god of the world’ you have invented), then really the word of god causes no offense, it is the words of people that do. Anyway, non-believers generally are advocates for freedom of speech and will defend the rights of believers to express their whacky ideas as much as for anyone else; they do not buy into the offense industry that some faithful (especially in the Catholic church) subscribe to. We all have the right to be offended.

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi Morningstar

Quote

Why is it said, “Evolution vs. God”

I know. However it is usually christian fundamentalists who take this line, not scientists. Nevertheless I think belief in god is incompatible with scientific endeavour. Faith is the antithesis to finding out the answer no matter what it may be. If your god is flexible to all feasible models, then what point is the god at all?

Quote

Isn't it possible “both” are true? Is this a matter of the literalness of Genesis 1 & 2? Read these words carefully and open your mind to the possibility they both are true. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature Let the earth bring forth the living creature

Why would you bother with the fables of ignorant ancient Middle-Eastern tribes when you have the science? At best they were stating the obvious, but unfortunately you have to change the order of what they said, and ignore the ‘days’ bit to make it fit history. I know David has a convoluted apologium for it but again, it is editing a story in the light of modern science and trying to make it sound like science. There is no explanation in Genesis. Why not just have the science and be done with it?

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi David

Stu: Delusion is possible in both cases, but is temporary for scientists.

Quote

…Eventually, scientists do find the proof or disproof for their beliefs. I agree.

I disagree with your strawman.

Quote

Besides the horse with the extra toe and of different size, what actual proof… Do you have a list somewhere of why specifically scientists believe in evolution, perhaps in order from most persuasive to least. You have to understand, people just aren't willing to jump, to take that leap of faith.

You are saying people here are not willing to make a leap of faith?! It makes no difference to me, I have no agenda to convert, I am only interested in pointing out the truth in the face of the creationist lies posted here, and they are usually the same ones over and over. You can see all the evidence for evolution by natural selection listed starting in Wikipedia and moving on to the Talk Origins archives, links that I have posted before, amongst others. Some here have used the expression ‘pearls before swine’ in posts about me; I don’t have such a poor opinion of the status of contributors here (nothing wrong with pigs though!). People here could look up what evolution actually says, but they don’t want to. Ranting from a point of ignorance is much easier than from an informed position. All I offer is a counter to the lies.

Quote

Of course we know that the “kinds” of the genesis account have a great variety. The dog (wolf) kind–labra doodle, pit bull, etc; the cat kind–bobcat, leopard, cheetah, housecat, etc.

The word species is moderately well defined. What is the definition of the word ‘kind’?

Quote

Again, the Bible isn't a science book.

Make up your mind. Are you saying that ‘kinds’ doesn’t have an actual definition?

Quote

There were less variety of animals back then, sure.

I hope all those who have said there was a greater variety of animals ‘back then’ post now. Bet they won’t.

Quote

You say that scientists correct their mistakes in light of new information. Well, perhaps those who actually follow the Bible do to. In the past, one might have looked at the variety of animals and not knowing any better, presumed that the house cat was one kind and the bob cat another kind. But upon new information, their assumptions were wrong–they both come from the same cat. Yet, the Bible wasn't wrong, their assumptions were.

The word kind doesn’t mean anything. I presumed that spiny anteaters and meercats belonged to two different enstractifates, but I was wrong, they are in fact members of the same spondidillyodi.

Quote

So, if you could prove that one kind of animal has actually turned into another kind of animal–connect two species that aren't in the same family, that would be persuasive evidence.

You know enough about science to know that your use of the word ‘prove’ is utterly dishonest.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I note that no-one here has acknowledged that the oldest strata have fossil animals that are extinct, while things living today are not represented in the oldest rocks. This is the basic message of the fossil record. Change has clearly happened, and the only reasonable account is that organisms have reproduced giving rise to descendants, and as that process has gone on, change has accumulated. Species have come and gone over time. That is the simple fact of evolution.

This discussion should continue in a more appropriate thread, where people will be more comfortable in expressing their ignorant bigotry, uh, I mean opinions.

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi again David

Stu: It is an important aside that creationists rarely turn up to university biology departments. If they are the brave communicators of god’s truth, why do they only preach to the converted in church halls, and attempt to speak to schoolchildren in schools?

Quote

Again, you are lumping the good in with the bad. Jesus fortold a worldwide preaching work in the last days. (mat 24:14) He told his disciples to go and make other disciples. (Mat 28;19,20) And Jesus true followers do do this. But of course, most do not. Most, ring their bells and will talk to you if you bring something up, but won't make the effort to actually go out and talk to people.

So will you be the honest one? Will you go to your nearest university and ask for a slot in their next scheduled biology postgrad. seminars?

Stu: Only 4% believe in biblical creationism, so 36% certainly are not the kind you see here. I find it hard to believe too, except we do know that religions have refined their powers of deception over the centuries.

Quote

So, great masses of scientists can be decieved and go on deceiving each other, and also true, most religion is bad and does deceive people. That is why God has promised to destroy it. I agree with you on both these points.

You avoid the question of the complete lack of a single observation that falsifies the theory of evolution, even though it is eminently falsifiable. More relevant here is the complete lack of a fact that ‘disproves’ the religious beliefs of those you call followers of ‘bad religion’. There is no good reason to suppose that followers of Zeus are wrong, that is not also a good reason to suppose that followers of Jesus are wrong.

Stu: Only 4% believe in biblical creationism, so 36% certainly are not the kind you see here. I find it hard to believe too, except we do know that religions have refined their powers of deception over the centuries. The default position, the one we are born with, is atheism. That overwhelmingly lasts into adolescence. What happens then? Do people attain some sort of belief or pretense to it because they think they should? Because they think it is the best way for their children to ‘learn morality’? Because they like the rites of passage offered by a church, even though they have to pretend they believe? The pressure brought to bear through family? There are very many unhappy closet atheists who have to keep up the pretense of belief because their families expect it, sometimes on pain of rejection from the family home. Then there is the powerful Catholic doctrine of guilt, but that’s a whole other thread!

Quote

I would have thought scientists as a group would have been way more disciplined than this. But I guess you would know better. They give in to “pressure.” You say from family. I also believe from their peers.

The competition for 'most righteous' in christianity causes schism, splintering into more and more contradictory doctrines. The competition in science causes the wrong hypotheses to be weeded out; the result is increasing consensus. There is a hypothesis in science that a wrong idea only lasts the lifetime of the scientist promoting it. Good scientists are individually objective and suspend judgement; peer review stops in their tracks those who want to push barrows, and those who want to stop other people pushing their barrows! I don’t see you making the same judgement about the theories we have to explain the atomic nature of matter or electrical theory for example. Are scientists reliable on these issues, but suddenly cave in to their materialist principles when confronted with having to try and explain origins? There is a wholistic honesty in science that is missing from other attempts to explain ourselves and our surroundings.

I am increasingly of the opinion too that there is a culture of promoting ignorance about science amongst fundamentalist christians, and the choir here will follow what you write with some enthusiasm, even though you present no evidence to support it.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 15 2007,13:34)

Hi Stu, psst. Don't tell anyone but David believes only the JWs fulfill all these claims of righteousness.

Does he pray that he will not contract a medical condition that requires a blood transfusion?

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 15 2007,19:03)

Hi Nick Quote Those who are servants of the god of this world hate and reject the words and the people of God. They are offended and repelled by the presence of the Spirit of God -humanly inexplicable- and they show their loyalties and choose and sadly predict their own fate. If you mean atheists (the people who have no god, not even this ‘god of the world’ you have invented), then really the word of god causes no offense, it is the words of people that do.  Anyway, non-believers generally are advocates for freedom of speech and will defend the rights of believers to express their whacky ideas as much as for anyone else; they do not buy into the offense industry that some faithful (especially in the Catholic church) subscribe to.  We all have the right to be offended. Stuart

Hi Stu,
You are tolerant like a good scientific nonbeliever?
Then why are you here if you do not share our faith?
In which way does your participation show your belief in freedom of speech for others?

[IM4Truth]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 15 2007,20:55)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 15 2007,19:03) Hi Nick Quote Those who are servants of the god of this world hate and reject the words and the people of God. They are offended and repelled by the presence of the Spirit of God -humanly inexplicable- and they show their loyalties and choose and sadly predict their own fate. If you mean atheists (the people who have no god, not even this ‘god of the world’ you have invented), then really the word of god causes no offense, it is the words of people that do.  Anyway, non-believers generally are advocates for freedom of speech and will defend the rights of believers to express their whacky ideas as much as for anyone else; they do not buy into the offense industry that some faithful (especially in the Catholic church) subscribe to.  We all have the right to be offended. Stuart Hi Stu, You are tolerant like a good scientific nonbeliever? Then why are you here if you do not share our faith? In which way does your participation show your belief in freedom of speech for others?

nICK You are asking why Stu is here, to get you! He did others. That is why I have warned you.

Peace and Love Mrs.

[kenrch]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 15 2007,11:12)

Quote (david @ Dec. 14 2007,17:16) Quote Audiences know they are being deceived, and want the deception to have the cleverness of simplicity. Yes, they do want a clever simple answer, but when asked, they always think the answer is difficult. If I'm watching a magic trick, I first watch it for the simple feeling of wonder it creates, as you speak of. Then, I de-construct it, because I must know the answer. Once you peel back the layers, you can never go back to that sence of mystery. Yes, I know the motivation of those who watch magic shows. But my point was that that while they WANT it to be a clever simple solution, they tend to believe it is not. They cannot fathom being fooled by something so simple. Their reaction is universally the same: “Oh, is that all it is.” Truthfully, the magic happens in their head. People have this habit of seeing not what is there, but what they are told. And many see what they want to see or even what they are told they must see. Either the world is suffering from a mass delusion that God exists or it is suffering from a mass delusion that evolution is true. But it is obvious from this that people and in fact the majority of them can be just plain wrong, deceived, taken in, fooled. I still can't get over the fact that 40% of scientists say they believe in God. Why is it said, “Evolution vs. God” Isn't it possible “both” are true? Is this a matter of the literalness of Genesis 1 & 2? Read these words carefully and open your mind to the possibility they both are true. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature Let the earth bring forth the living creature

Hum, did the water just get warmer?

[Morningstar]

Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 16 2007,01:34)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 15 2007,11:12) Quote (david @ Dec. 14 2007,17:16) Quote Audiences know they are being deceived, and want the deception to have the cleverness of simplicity. Yes, they do want a clever simple answer, but when asked, they always think the answer is difficult.  If I'm watching a magic trick, I first watch it for the simple feeling of wonder it creates, as you speak of.  Then, I de-construct it, because I must know the answer.  Once you peel back the layers, you can never go back to that sence of mystery.  Yes, I know the motivation of those who watch magic shows.  But my point was that that while they WANT it to be a clever simple solution, they tend to believe it is not.  They cannot fathom being fooled by something so simple.  Their reaction is universally the same: “Oh, is that all it is.” Truthfully, the magic happens in their head.  People have this habit of seeing not what is there, but what they are told.  And many see what they want to see or even what they are told they must see. Either the world is suffering from a mass delusion that God exists or it is suffering from a mass delusion that evolution is true. But it is obvious from this that people and in fact the majority of them can be just plain wrong, deceived, taken in, fooled. I still can't get over the fact that 40% of scientists say they believe in God. Why is it said, “Evolution vs. God” Isn't it possible “both” are true? Is this a matter of the literalness of Genesis 1 & 2? Read these words carefully and open your mind to the possibility they both are true. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature Let the earth bring forth the living creature Hum, did the water just get warmer?

I dont really understand what you mean, Kenrch.

My point is that there really is alot of evidence that implies evolution is real.

Do I personally know this “for sure”? No, I don't, but from my personal study of the subject it seems very much the case that evolution is most likely a fact.

It is only recently within the last few hundred years that “christians” have dogmatically insisted that the Genesis account is a linear and literal description of creation. Look into what past generations have believed about Genesis chapter 1.

Even before modern science came along past christians did NOT think Genesis was literal concerning HOW God made heaven and earth.

Read the early church fathers from Justin Martyr and Origen all the way through history up until Augustine and then even onward towards Martin Luther. MOST OF HISTORIES CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST NEVER BELIEVED GENESIS DESCRIBED LITERALLY HOW THINGS WERE MADE.

We are drawing a line that doesn't even need to exist!!!

The last 100 years of Christianity has created a strange backlash against science. Why? In my opinion, not because science is not compatable with Faith but because of the Fear of a “model” being introduced that could possibly exclude a need for a God whether in actuality or just perceived.

[IM4Truth]

morningstar I really don't care if evolution is real or not, I don't like that we have an Atheist even on this website. And Tow of course who does not belief that Jesus is our Messiah. I am getting to the point that I don't even want to post anymore. I am sick and tired of it all. You take that to the the Bank that someone like me has to say that. It is quit ridiculous to say the least.

[Author]

Posts