Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Scientific Method

In response to Brian posted by pink101:

Pink, I accept the scientific method. But, like a calculator, the data you put in determines the result you get at the end of the process. Look, I'm not finding fault with evolution as a naturalistic explanation for the origns of the universe. Remove the possibility or any consideration of an Intelligent Designer and naturalistic evolution IS your best explanation.

Let me quickly say, however, Pink, that I am NOT accusing ANYONE or saying that ANYONE is a 'demon-possessed nut.' You're putting words in my mouth. Would you please discuss this with ME and not some strawman you've created based on OTHER Christians you've spoken with?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Scientific Method

In response to Scientific Method posted by BrianTubbs:
.
It certainly seemed like you were saying that people who teach evolution are trying to put their philosophical understandings of reality across to anyone who didn't know better.
.
Actually, creationists who believe that an intelligent being designed everything are the ones who are trying to put a philosophical ideology across to the gullible.
.
The facts always boil down to the original question which is, "From where did the intelligent desinger come?"
.
It is amazing that we are here to experiece our own existence and it is fantastic that we are learning about things that past generations never dreamed exist. Looking at the photos from space of far distant galaxies strikes me dumb with awe. If some single creator made it all, such a being cannot be fathomed by any stretch of the imagination. It must be a force beyong comprehension. Why do we have to put that entity in a bottle or a book or any place else?
.
When I was a child I thought of childish things. Now I am an adult.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - What I'm saying....

In response to Scientific Method posted by pink101:

...is that people approach the origins question based on their philosophical assumptions -- whether they are religious or not.

Still, YOU are the one that's injecting super-charged language into this discussion -- twisting my words to say that I'm accusing people of being demon-possessed nuts. You are the one who sees things in extremes, Pink. Not me.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Childishness

The idea that belief in God or an Intelligent Designer is childish is right out of the Sam Harris / Richard Dawkins school of thought. If that's your position, I'm afraid there's very little constructive you and I can accomplish in discussing this. I've already laid out some very strong logical arguments for God. If you're rejecting those out of hand, then what more can be said? We're just too far apart.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - What's Our Goal, Here?

In response to Childishness posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Your post seems to ask, "What's our goal, here?".
.
It's not you and me; but, there are others who may want to join in or just read what we say.
.
My quote about being an adult is right out of the Bible.
.
I'm so happy we live in a secular society with our protections against a state religion, limited speech, publications(the press) and that we are free to associate with whomever we like. I'm very happy Congress does not have a right to propose legislation to the President on which he might otherwise act in these First Amendment areas to limit our rights. Not only our present President and Congress; but, every one for ever and ever as long as this government of, by, and for the People shall not perish from the earth.
.
You do agree with that, don't you?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - What's Our Goal, Here?

In response to What's Our Goal, Here? posted by pink101:

The quote about thinking once as a child is of course from Paul (I Corinthians 13), and you are of course lifting the phrase out of context. Be that as it may....

Why do you insinuate that I favor limited individual rights and greater power to the state? Of course, I believe in our Constitution. Probably more so than most people today in that I don't believe it should be manipulated by activist judges (or for that matter by activist Presidents either) for certain ends. The Constitution has intrinsic meaning - defined by those who authored it (or who authored the portions in focus). It is the job of the courts to take the actual words - the actual TEXT - of the document and the basic, original understanding of that text WHEN IT WAS PASSED - and then apply it to the present day WITH AS LITTLE INTERFERENCE FROM THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS as possible! It is in THAT SPIRIT that I am 100% committed to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and ALL of our amendments since its inception.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Is That So?

In response to What's Our Goal, Here? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You wrote, It is the job of the courts to take the actual words - the actual TEXT - of the document and the basic, original understanding of that text WHEN IT WAS PASSED - and then apply it to the present day WITH AS LITTLE INTERFERENCE FROM THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS as possible!
.
Is that so? Where did you find that fact? Is it in the Constitution itself? Where you get those statement you have capitalized?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Belief in an Intelligent Designer

The Constitution discussion is being taken up in a different thread, so bringing this back to the article...

I don't consider belief in an Intelligent Designer to be childish in any way. It is a reasonable, logical position, based on science and reason.

If you look at something which evinces intricate complexity and design, you would naturally conclude that it was fashioned by a designer. It is a logical, rational inference.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Belief in an Intelligent Designer

In response to Belief in an Intelligent Designer posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Discussing the ideas of Intelligent Design brings up the ideas of creation and evolution itself.
.
Intelligent design is, as best I can figure, an alternative to evolution and the big bang theories.
.
What we're saying with Intelligent Design is that some entity with superior capabilities must have been involved in the creation. But, does the t\Theory of Evolution deny that a superior being was nvolved? No.
.
What is there about the Theory of Evolution that can be shown to be an ongoing happening that you don't like?
.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Intelligent Design

In response to Belief in an Intelligent Designer posted by pink101:
Intelligent design is, as best I can figure, an alternative to evolution and the big bang theories.
Intelligent Design INCLUDES alternatives to evolution and the big bang theories, but it is NOT limited to those alternatives. There are evolutionists (namely Deists and/or Theistic Evolutionists) who are also ID adherents.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds