Intelligent Design? Myth or Fact

Disputing a source does not say anything about the information presented by that source. It would be like me saying nothing in that article about the brothers Grimm can be accurate because it's published by wikipedia. This is a contentless statement and a typical technique of obfuscation. If it was faulty, I would need to identify which parts were faulty and why. The invitation remains: if you'd like to debate the content of the information and evidence I've presented regarding evolution, please go ahead. If you'd like to keep denying there is any information about and evidence for evolution, that's your prerogative.

 

At this point in time no I am not. Although I hold many of the same beliefs.

 

Your father is a pastor? Well that explains a lot. You ever wonder that if what you've been taught makes the Bible seem contradictory and wrong, that the problem might be with what you’ve been taught and not with the Bible?

If Christian views do not support the claims of the bible then perhaps your groups views should be changed so as not to be misleading? I agree with you if a “Christian” has views that is not backed by the Bible then the “Christian” should change his views not just say the Bible is wrong or contradictory.


I came here to have an intelligent discussion not a discussion where someone speaks rashly and changes things around to fit their likes and dislikes?
Then perhaps you shouldn't change things around to fit your likes and dislikes.

 

It's interesting. We have two parallel conversations (battles?) going on here, both heating up and getting kinda personal. In one arena, we have Jumbuli versus Lithium on the scientific status of evolutionary theory. In another arena, there's the Indy Hippie-OldwaterBrother bout over God's omniscience and Jesus' claims to divinity. Both seem to have drifted from the original topic about Intelligent Design, which was really about the Anthropic Principle. Should we keep it like this, or set up two new threads to make it less confusing?

 

What do YOU know about the scientific validity of the theory which you are trying to defend here?

Just links, to any source, without expounding and explaining your point of view won't work.

You can either proceed to prove your case or [by default] your claim is moot and I have the benefit of assumption.

 

I simply state what I feel in my heart and can back up with scriptural references. But seeing as how no matter how much proof either of us gives the other is not going to back down (the eternal flaw in religious debate) I will simply state that your beliefs are yours mine are mine, and we will simply have to agree to disagree my friend. I was taught methodist teachings of the bible in the first place, then I studied the catholic, Calvanistic, and Lutheran, philosophies as well when I got older. I believe personally that these teachings are the most closely related to the doctrine of the bible. And most of my beliefs stem from what I have read in the bible itself. I refuse to accept any religion at face value and I find some, namely Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, to be quite oppresive and in general misleading. These are simply my views.

Now once I've woken up enough I'll start a new line of thought on the OP. Peace, love, and all the best OWB hopefully we can both eventually find what we are searching for.

IH

 

How could there be a dispute or proof in the matters where ones' opinion is based on faith?

I think it is important to differentiate debates where both sides claim to base their opinion on empirical evidence and scientific method of reaching conclusion, as opposed to exchanges of opinion where both sides share their views and beliefs based on individual faith.

In case of scientific debate there is no recourse to "your beliefs are yours mine are mine" in face of evidence or reason pointing in oppososite direction, whereas on faith based discussion it is the obvious outcome of any exchange of contradictory opinion.

As soon as participant clearly admits that his or her opinion is Faith based, there is no dispute or further debate with such person, one can only add their own views and opinions to it, but no real dispute or debate (in scientific terms) is possible on the issues involving ones' faith.

However, when participant claims to have a scientifically valid method of arriving to certain conclusion and makes the claim of scientific validity of his or her opinion, then there is no recourse to "your beliefs are yours mine are mine" , but the claimant has the burden of proof and must either prove the claim or concede that there was no valid claim in the first place.

If you want to split debate into two threads along those lines, then I am all for it.
I don't wish to confuse anyone or participate in any heated faith based exchanges of opinion.

 

Trust me, it's possible to have "a dispute or proof in matters where ones opinion is based on faith", especially where both sides accept the authority of a text. If you want to see proof for that, check out the Christian site, particularly the thread about gays, where the debate goes on and on. After a few rounds of citing chapter and verse in English, and arguing syntax, hermeneutics, and historical context, we quote it in Greek, thump it a few times for good measure, and start over!

 

Exchange of opposing opinions, yes. Individual and opposing opinions on how to interpret the text, yes. Agreement or disagreement on how to interpret particular word in the text, yes.

But proof ? In what sense ?

Concept of Faith by definition excludes the concept of clear cut proof, or else it would no longer be Faith, but acknowledgement of empirically established facts and scientific theories.

See above.

 

Definition of Proof: American Heritage Dictionary:

NOUN:

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. 1. <LI type=a>The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
   2. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3. 1. <LI type=a>Convincing or persuasive demonstration: [SIZE=+0]was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.[/SIZE]
   2. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: [SIZE=+0]put one's beliefs to the proof.[/SIZE]
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

**********************************************
Definition of Proof: Meriam Webster Online Dictionary:

1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning2obsolete : experience3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried ; especially : unyielding hardness5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal.

*********************************************************

By any of these definitions, I think it's possible to provide compelling arguments in favor of one or another interpretation of a text. The "faith" comes in accepting the text as valid. Proof isn't necessarily scientific proof.

 

Okiefreak, i will not have dispute with you over the definition of the word proof nor how it corresponds to outcome of discussions where one or another opinion is based on faith or interpretation of texts and words that are source of the same faith.

All the best

 

Thanks! Same to you! I think it would have been a tedious argument. Pax vobiscum!

 

Thanx but I've already found what I'm looking for, still, may you find the truth as well.

 

Pax vobiscum!