Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The 15 billion yrs of cosmos & 6 dys of creation r same.

Page 7 of 8 [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

31 Jul 2007, 6:26 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Ragtime, you haven't abandoned the thread entirely, so would you be willing to give a quick answer to my question whether the origin of any other species more recently than the origin of humans would conflict with Genesis? If you don't like a choice between yes and no, how about five options?

1: Yes, there would be a conflict
2: I think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
3: I don't know
4: I don't think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
5: No there would not be a conflict

I am not asking you to spend time on reaching an agreement whether any species has an origin more recent than humans. I only ask whether you think that would contradict Genesis. Just pick one of those five options for an answer, or if they don't contain what you consider the true answer, offer something else.

Gromit


6. Nothing possible conflicts with Genesis.


Because Genesis is always right? Or everything else is wrong?


Less games, more discussion please.

'
discussing" by replying with a one-line retort to their one line retort which was in response to your PREVIOUS one-line retort?

pot

kettle

black?


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

31 Jul 2007, 7:07 pm

Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Ragtime, you haven't abandoned the thread entirely, so would you be willing to give a quick answer to my question whether the origin of any other species more recently than the origin of humans would conflict with Genesis? If you don't like a choice between yes and no, how about five options?

1: Yes, there would be a conflict
2: I think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
3: I don't know
4: I don't think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
5: No there would not be a conflict

I am not asking you to spend time on reaching an agreement whether any species has an origin more recent than humans. I only ask whether you think that would contradict Genesis. Just pick one of those five options for an answer, or if they don't contain what you consider the true answer, offer something else.

Gromit


6. Nothing possible conflicts with Genesis.


Because Genesis is always right? Or everything else is wrong?


Less games, more discussion please.

'
discussing" by replying with a one-line retort to their one line retort which was in response to your PREVIOUS one-line retort?

pot

kettle

black?


Just because a response is one line doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of complex thought behind it. The ability to be brief shouldn't be criticized.

But it does remind me of a Dilbert. (Anyone else here read every single Dilbert that's ever been published, plus a few that haven't?) Anyway, Dilbert is interviewing prospective employees, and he complains to his boss, who likes a particular candidate, that the candidate's resume is a blank piece of paper. The Pointy-Haired Boss replies,
"I like a man who can be brief."



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

31 Jul 2007, 7:16 pm

i agree... but you dont follow your own wisdom.


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

31 Jul 2007, 7:43 pm

Sedaka wrote:
i agree... but you dont follow your own wisdom.


In what way, Miss one-liner who accuses of one-lining? ;)



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

31 Jul 2007, 8:22 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
i agree... but you dont follow your own wisdom.


In what way, Miss one-liner who accuses of one-lining? ;)


you were the one gripin about oneliners and belittling them... yet using them in your own defense to sidestep questions.

do you not see the irony here?


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

31 Jul 2007, 9:00 pm

Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
i agree... but you dont follow your own wisdom.


In what way, Miss one-liner who accuses of one-lining? ;)


you were the one gripin about oneliners and belittling them... yet using them in your own defense to sidestep questions.

do you not see the irony here?


You went against your own accusation in response to me, by using one line. That's what I was saying. Let's nitpick and b***h some more, k?



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

31 Jul 2007, 11:07 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
i agree... but you dont follow your own wisdom.


In what way, Miss one-liner who accuses of one-lining? ;)


you were the one gripin about oneliners and belittling them... yet using them in your own defense to sidestep questions.

do you not see the irony here?


You went against your own accusation in response to me, by using one line. That's what I was saying. Let's nitpick and b***h some more, k?


no i didnt.......... just pointing out your inconsistancy.

i can accuse all i want. im fine with one liners... you're still missing the irony


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

01 Aug 2007, 7:06 am

Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
i agree... but you dont follow your own wisdom.


In what way, Miss one-liner who accuses of one-lining? ;)


you were the one gripin about oneliners and belittling them... yet using them in your own defense to sidestep questions.

do you not see the irony here?


You went against your own accusation in response to me, by using one line. That's what I was saying. Let's nitpick and b***h some more, k?


no i didnt.......... just pointing out your inconsistancy.

i can accuse all i want. im fine with one liners... you're still missing the irony


And he still hasn't answered the question either.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

01 Aug 2007, 8:51 am

Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
i agree... but you dont follow your own wisdom.


In what way, Miss one-liner who accuses of one-lining? ;)


you were the one gripin about oneliners and belittling them... yet using them in your own defense to sidestep questions.

do you not see the irony here?


You went against your own accusation in response to me, by using one line. That's what I was saying. Let's nitpick and b***h some more, k?


no i didnt.......... just pointing out your inconsistancy.

i can accuse all i want. im fine with one liners... you're still missing the irony


I don't mind one-liners. Why did you think I did? Whether or not I said something that sounded like that to you, I don't mind one-liners.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

01 Aug 2007, 10:06 am

Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Ragtime, you haven't abandoned the thread entirely, so would you be willing to give a quick answer to my question whether the origin of any other species more recently than the origin of humans would conflict with Genesis? If you don't like a choice between yes and no, how about five options?

1: Yes, there would be a conflict
2: I think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
3: I don't know
4: I don't think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
5: No there would not be a conflict

I am not asking you to spend time on reaching an agreement whether any species has an origin more recent than humans. I only ask whether you think that would contradict Genesis. Just pick one of those five options for an answer, or if they don't contain what you consider the true answer, offer something else.

Gromit


6. Nothing possible conflicts with Genesis.


Because Genesis is always right? Or everything else is wrong?


[b]Less games, more discussion please.

'
discussing" by replying with a one-line retort to their one line retort which was in response to your PREVIOUS one-line retort?[/b]

pot

kettle

black?


you made that statment cause you didnt like mcbeth's one-liner and chose to ignore it and reply with your own onliner...


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

01 Aug 2007, 10:16 am

Sedaka wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Ragtime, you haven't abandoned the thread entirely, so would you be willing to give a quick answer to my question whether the origin of any other species more recently than the origin of humans would conflict with Genesis? If you don't like a choice between yes and no, how about five options?

1: Yes, there would be a conflict
2: I think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
3: I don't know
4: I don't think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
5: No there would not be a conflict

I am not asking you to spend time on reaching an agreement whether any species has an origin more recent than humans. I only ask whether you think that would contradict Genesis. Just pick one of those five options for an answer, or if they don't contain what you consider the true answer, offer something else.

Gromit


6. Nothing possible conflicts with Genesis.


Because Genesis is always right? Or everything else is wrong?


[b]Less games, more discussion please.

'
discussing" by replying with a one-line retort to their one line retort which was in response to your PREVIOUS one-line retort?[/b]

pot

kettle

black?


you made that statment cause you didnt like mcbeth's one-liner and chose to ignore it and reply with your own onliner...


Yes, I remember now. (I had mental block.) He was bating/tweaking me, like he likes to, and that's what I was objecting to, not his brevity. Actually, I'll always read a short post, whereas I'll rarely read a long post. I'm a fairly slow reader, so reading long posts is costly of my time. You know when movies/TV shows have text intros or conclusions? The text often goes away before I can finish reading it. :? Then I imagine machine-gunning the producer, and balance is restored. :D j/k.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

01 Aug 2007, 10:24 am

ok well lol


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

01 Aug 2007, 12:47 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Ragtime, you haven't abandoned the thread entirely, so would you be willing to give a quick answer to my question whether the origin of any other species more recently than the origin of humans would conflict with Genesis? If you don't like a choice between yes and no, how about five options?

1: Yes, there would be a conflict
2: I think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
3: I don't know
4: I don't think there would be a conflict, but I would have to think about it to be sure
5: No there would not be a conflict

I am not asking you to spend time on reaching an agreement whether any species has an origin more recent than humans. I only ask whether you think that would contradict Genesis. Just pick one of those five options for an answer, or if they don't contain what you consider the true answer, offer something else.

Gromit


6. Nothing possible conflicts with Genesis.


Because Genesis is always right? Or everything else is wrong?


[b]Less games, more discussion please.

'
discussing" by replying with a one-line retort to their one line retort which was in response to your PREVIOUS one-line retort?[/b]

pot

kettle

black?


you made that statment cause you didnt like mcbeth's one-liner and chose to ignore it and reply with your own onliner...


Yes, I remember now. (I had mental block.) He was bating/tweaking me, like he likes to, and that's what I was objecting to, not his brevity. Actually, I'll always read a short post, whereas I'll rarely read a long post. I'm a fairly slow reader, so reading long posts is costly of my time. You know when movies/TV shows have text intros or conclusions? The text often goes away before I can finish reading it. :? Then I imagine machine-gunning the producer, and balance is restored. :D j/k.


Nice assumption-work on your part there. So when someone has a question about your faith, or god forbid actually QUESTIONS your faith, its bating/tweaking? The fact that i might actually want to know how you came to your conclusion that anything possible does not conflict with genesis couldnt POSSIBLY be the reason I asked, could it?

And you STILL havent answered yet.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

01 Aug 2007, 1:09 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Nice assumption-work on your part there. So when someone has a question about your faith, or god forbid actually QUESTIONS your faith, its bating/tweaking? The fact that i might actually want to know how you came to your conclusion that anything possible does not conflict with genesis couldnt POSSIBLY be the reason I asked, could it?


It's more the fact that I read every one of your posts with a shouting voice in my head, and it fits! You're throwing demands, not asking sincere questions. Jesus sometimes responded with utter silence, for instance to some of Pontius Pilate's questions. Another occasion was: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger" (John 8:3-6).

He eventually did answer them. But other times, when the Pharisees asked him questions, with the express purpose of trying to trap him, rather than genuinely seeking answers, he did not answer their questions, but responded indirectly, because of their deceitful hearts.

And you're erroneously assuming that I owe you unlimited answerings to insincere, boorish questions. If you want the answers, look them up. You know where: Genesis, and any of several Christian commentaries on that book. I have told you all you need to know from me.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

01 Aug 2007, 5:29 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Nice assumption-work on your part there. So when someone has a question about your faith, or god forbid actually QUESTIONS your faith, its bating/tweaking? The fact that i might actually want to know how you came to your conclusion that anything possible does not conflict with genesis couldnt POSSIBLY be the reason I asked, could it?


It's more the fact that I read every one of your posts with a shouting voice in my head, and it fits! You're throwing demands, not asking sincere questions. Jesus sometimes responded with utter silence, for instance to some of Pontius Pilate's questions. Another occasion was: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger" (John 8:3-6).

He eventually did answer them. But other times, when the Pharisees asked him questions, with the express purpose of trying to trap him, rather than genuinely seeking answers, he did not answer their questions, but responded indirectly, because of their deceitful hearts.

And you're erroneously assuming that I owe you unlimited answerings to insincere, boorish questions. If you want the answers, look them up. You know where: Genesis, and any of several Christian commentaries on that book. I have told you all you need to know from me.


Except I'm asking for YOUR opinions and beliefs, based on YOUR understanding of the scriptures etc. Not a random selection of academic's views. Feel free to not answer or answer as you see fit, but common politeness (something I'm sure is a reasonably christian thing) suggests that if you are going to make statements, you br prepared to have them questioned, queried, and think of reasoned responses, rather than making fatuous assumptions about a persons goals or character based on some imagined tone of voice. (In itself a fairly futile concept, given the site you are posting on. Correct tonal usage (or lack of it) is an Aspergers "foible."

As for your WWJD response.. sounds awfully similar to the art of spin employed by contemporary politicians, when asked a question they cannot, or will not answer.

Though I am interested. What was His final response to the question of stoning an adulterous woman? How would YOU have responded to that question, it apparently being a straightforward legal query?


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

02 Aug 2007, 4:40 am

Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
6. Nothing possible conflicts with Genesis.


Because Genesis is always right? Or everything else is wrong?


I think one part of the answer is in one of Ragtime's previous posts in this thread:
Ragtime wrote:
Scripture is God-breathed, which means that it was dictated. God told men concepts to write down, sometimes word-for-word, but both ways, they were instructed by God to write down what He gave them, even when they didn't understand it, as Peter mentions in his first epistle.


If you add the assumption that God never misleads, it follows that there can't be a real conflict. An apparent conflict through lack of understanding is still possible under these assumptions.

Ragtime, what do you do if your best interpretation of scripture and the best available scientific understanding are in conflict? If you assume that the conflict must be caused by some error in understanding, you still don't know whether the error is in the science or in your interpretation of scripture. (You may object to the word "interpretation". What you call literal reading with understanding of context is interpretation to me. Can we avoid getting sidetracked on that point?)

You are human and you can make mistakes, like the rest of us. You said so yourself. So if you find a conflict between well established scientific opinion and your interpretation of the bible, what do you do?

Gromit