What of the dinosaurs?

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

I assumed you were an atheist, but you identify yourself as an agnostic? Dawkins has said that he is 99.99% certain there is no God, but maintains a partial openness to the idea of deity for reasons of scientific objectivity (that's a paraphrase). You are taking a similar stance?

Did you come from a religious background? If so when did you become an agnostic? Was there some event or knowledge acquisition that pushed you in this direction. Just curious. Have you written about this?

I grew up as a boy with a traditional Christian background (Methodist), and a strong Quaker influence from my early adolescence until today - at least 50 years now. Thomas Huxley invented the word "agnostic" to describe the only possible position of science relative to the supernatural. If there exists beings that are free to act without regard to physical laws, and to leave no mark that they did so, then a rational science cannot detect them. So we must be agnostic not from confusion, but because the existence of such a strange being cannot be detected by science.

However, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim creationists insist that such a being is denied by the Bible. They insist that either their personally active deity had left a "perfect" record of events, or that there is no God at all. This is the ultimate stupidity of creationism. They demand that their god is false if there is the least difference between their biblical fabrications and the real world revealed by science. They also demand that they are the only "true" believers. I rather identify as "non-Christian" than associate with frauds and lies about science and faith.

In order to maintain this fraud, these so-called "biblical literalists" also deny large amounts of the Bible.

 

[Brainfreeze]

I grew up as a boy with a traditional Christian background (Methodist), and a strong Quaker influence from my early adolescence until today - at least 50 years now. Thomas Huxley invented the word "agnostic" to describe the only possible position of science relative to the supernatural. If there exists beings that are free to act without regard to physical laws, and to leave no mark that they did so, then a rational science cannot detect them. So we must be agnostic not from confusion, but because the existence of such a strange being cannot be detected by science.

However, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim creationists insist that such a being is denied by the Bible. They insist that either their personally active deity had left a "perfect" record of events, or that there is no God at all. This is the ultimate stupidity of creationism. They demand that their god is false if there is the least difference between their biblical fabrications and the real world revealed by science. They also demand that they are the only "true" believers. I rather identify as "non-Christian" than associate with frauds and lies about science and faith.

In order to maintain this fraud, these so-called "biblical literalists" also deny large amounts of the Bible.

Sounds like your mingling everyone together.. This whole paragraph is bunched up fraudulent statements. Your confused doc, I'm still praying for you.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Sounds like your mingling everyone together.. This whole paragraph is bunched up fraudulent statements. Your confused doc, I'm still praying for you.

Don't forget to pray for the thousands of children mutilated today. I pray for you that you can send them money to buy medicine and food.

Here are a few examples of creationists like you with the only difference being that they think their God(s) win if rational science is lost to mankind.

Muslim
Harun Yahya (Adnan Okbar)
2007 "Atlas Of Creation" Istanbul: Global Publishing

Hindu
Michael A Cremo, Richard L. Thompson
1998 "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race" Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing

Neo-pagan/Native American
Deloria, Vine Jr.
1997 “Red Earth, White Lies” Golden Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing

Orthodox Jewish Creationism is less open in English language books. Two excellent rebuttals are published;

Physicist
Mark Perakh
2003 "Unintelligent Design" New York: Prometheus Press

Orthodox Rabbi
Slifkin, Natan
2006/2008 “The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Take it up with St. Augustine when you get the chance.

Nope. You are caught again. There is no connection of the commentary to the scripture reference added by someone else at the end, whether it was that author who interpreted, or someone he took that reference from. None of the context had a thing in common to the contextual Timothy passage.

There is no point in moving on to yet another misapplication like your earlier one I replied to. I recognize that atheists invent such associations, out of their spiritual blindness, quoting what other atheists have written on websites, each incapable of proper Bible exegesis. You fell into that same trap, whether an atheist or neutral unbeliever (if there is such a condition).

 

[Brainfreeze]

Don't forget to pray for the thousands of children mutilated today. I pray for you that you can send them money to buy medicine and food.

Here are a few examples of creationists like you with the only difference being that they think their God(s) win if rational science is lost to mankind.

Muslim
Harun Yahya (Adnan Okbar)
2007 "Atlas Of Creation" Istanbul: Global Publishing

Hindu
Michael A Cremo, Richard L. Thompson
1998 "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race" Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing

Neo-pagan/Native American
Deloria, Vine Jr.
1997 “Red Earth, White Lies” Golden Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing

Orthodox Jewish Creationism is less open in English language books. Two excellent rebuttals are published;

Physicist
Mark Perakh
2003 "Unintelligent Design" New York: Prometheus Press

Orthodox Rabbi
Slifkin, Natan
2006/2008 “The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

I give to children with cancer at the moment, I don't owe anyone the disclosure of how much, irrelevant, planning on rapping up some food together to donate this week as well. I do what I can doc, I do " my part ". none of these religions are Christian either. I also don't put a exact time on earth as it isn't written. I'd say thousands though and not billions..

 

[Word_Swordsman]

.....However, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim creationists insist that such a being is denied by the Bible. They insist that either their personally active deity had left a "perfect" record of events, or that there is no God at all. This is the ultimate stupidity of creationism. They demand that their god is false if there is the least difference between their biblical fabrications and the real world revealed by science....

Evolution could only exist by defying known laws of physics. Therefore, your concept of a "real world revealed by science" reveals an impossible world, on a par with John Carter messing with the planet Venus. In addition science can't prove there are heretofore unknown laws of physics in force in another place in the universe, to which God has ever-present access If known, it's proximate afffect upon our planet could have destroyed it long ago, or was the basis for forming our galaxy. Man can only detect a natural science understanding on the basis of what man knows of nature here, now, or accept that God has such things reserved for future purposes. We know man can't possibly prove evolution over millions of years in the past. The idea is a spawn of atheism, a flight from responsibility towards holy God.

 

[Kerry]

Evolution is also mathematically incorrect and they know it, but yet teach it as fact. Would anyone deny that the average population growth is 2.5% per annum?

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Evolution is also mathematically incorrect and they know it, but yet teach it as fact. Would anyone deny that the average population growth is 2.5% per annum?

I suspect they have been reading too many fortune cookies.

 

[Calminian]

....If there exists beings that are free to act without regard to physical laws, and to leave no mark that they did so, then a rational science cannot detect them. ....

Dr. Hurd, I've been telling skeptics this for years. They never believe me. A miracle is about as undetectable in the past via science as it would be in the future. While they would theoretically have an impact on their environment, it will be close to impossible to discern the the causing event via normal extrapolations. Once you've determined a miracle has happened, the starting point cannot be discerned by observing present normative processes and extrapolating backward. Neither could a future miracle be discerned by this means.

Nothing else you said made much sense, but you did get this part right.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Dr. Hurd, I've been telling skeptics this for years. They never believe me. A miracle is about as undetectable in the past via science as it would be in the future. ....

Nothing else you said made much sense, but you did get this part right.

Keep studying. It will make sense eventually.

 

[Timeline]

I grew up as a boy with a traditional Christian background (Methodist), and a strong Quaker influence from my early adolescence until today - at least 50 years now. Thomas Huxley invented the word "agnostic" to describe the only possible position of science relative to the supernatural. If there exists beings that are free to act without regard to physical laws, and to leave no mark that they did so, then a rational science cannot detect them. So we must be agnostic not from confusion, but because the existence of such a strange being cannot be detected by science.

However, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim creationists insist that such a being is denied by the Bible. They insist that either their personally active deity had left a "perfect" record of events, or that there is no God at all. This is the ultimate stupidity of creationism. They demand that their god is false if there is the least difference between their biblical fabrications and the real world revealed by science. They also demand that they are the only "true" believers. I rather identify as "non-Christian" than associate with frauds and lies about science and faith.

In order to maintain this fraud, these so-called "biblical literalists" also deny large amounts of the Bible.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.

I think of this verse often. How do we avoid leaning on our own understanding? It seems to be an all but impossible task. Our understanding is the way that we see things.

I think (yes, I see the irony) that it comes down to the beginning of the sentence. We trust in the Lord...and try not to let our understanding effect our faith.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Evolution is also mathematically incorrect and they know it, but yet teach it as fact. Would anyone deny that the average population growth is 2.5% per annum?

Two problems you have, Kerry. The first is that you have shown neither knowledge of, nor aptitude for math. The second is that the growth rate of a population is highly variable.

This later problem you have is absolutely overwhelming. For example, there are bacteria populations that double (100% growth) every hour. There are mammal populations sadly in decline, and possibly headed for extinction. If you are trying to find some number for humans, then you are still wrong.

Do you know why?

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

I give to children with cancer at the moment, I don't owe anyone the disclosure of how much,

I would never ask "how much." Remember Mark 12:42-43,
and[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot],
Matthew 6[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

and,[/FONT]
James 2:14. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16. and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
[/FONT]
These ideas obviously led to the problems of "indulgences" sold to anyone wealthy enough. But, they are still in the Bible.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.

I think of this verse often.

Sure. Trust what ever priest or preacher wants your tithe. Definitely don't think on your own. Science is the cold study of reality. It won't fit the warm "give me money and go to Heaven" priestly message.

 

[Timeline]

Sure. Trust what ever priest or preacher wants your tithe. Definitely don't think on your own. Science is the cold study of reality. It won't fit the warm "give me money and go to Heaven" priestly message.

????????????

 

[Timeline]

I grew up as a boy with a traditional Christian background (Methodist), and a strong Quaker influence from my early adolescence until today - at least 50 years now. Thomas Huxley invented the word "agnostic" to describe the only possible position of science relative to the supernatural. If there exists beings that are free to act without regard to physical laws, and to leave no mark that they did so, then a rational science cannot detect them. So we must be agnostic not from confusion, but because the existence of such a strange being cannot be detected by science.

However, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim creationists insist that such a being is denied by the Bible. They insist that either their personally active deity had left a "perfect" record of events, or that there is no God at all. This is the ultimate stupidity of creationism. They demand that their god is false if there is the least difference between their biblical fabrications and the real world revealed by science. They also demand that they are the only "true" believers. I rather identify as "non-Christian" than associate with frauds and lies about science and faith.

In order to maintain this fraud, these so-called "biblical literalists" also deny large amounts of the Bible.

You wrote this...

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.

I think of this verse often. How do we avoid leaning on our own understanding? It seems to be an all but impossible task. Our understanding is the way that we see things.

I think (yes, I see the irony) that it comes down to the beginning of the sentence. We trust in the Lord...and try not to let our understanding effect our faith.

I wrote this...

Sure. Trust what ever priest or preacher wants your tithe. Definitely don't think on your own. Science is the cold study of reality. It won't fit the warm "give me money and go to Heaven" priestly message.

And then you wrote this?

I agree with Huxley, to the degree in which you explained his thoughts, that you cannot use science to explain the acts of invisible beings (God, Holy Spirit, angels) that do not follow the understood laws of science. For example, a man being raised, by the voice of Jesus, after being dead for four days. That cannot be explained through science.

My response did not have anything to do with preachers, priests, or tithing. Not directly. And there are several things that I no longer believe that they teach where I attend. But, as you can see, we are back to "my understanding", upon which the Bible tells me not to lean - hence the seemingly impossible task.

 

[Timeline]

Dinosaurs....I thought I would write something on topic, for those who are concerned about derailments

 

[Tintin]

This thread needs to die, like the dinosaurs that died out thousands of years ago.

 

[Straightshot]

"Take it up with St. Augustine when you get the chance."


Now I see part of your dilemma Hurd .... you are looking at pseudo-Christianity and not biblical Christianity

Augustine was false teacher

Try the real deal .... burn your books and related

Turn to your Creator

Buy a KJV Bible and study your self approved .... only then will you know the truth

Your current off course striving is a dead ended road

.... and your time is short

 

[Tintin]

"Take it up with St. Augustine when you get the chance."


Now I see part of your dilemma Hurd .... you are looking at pseudo-Christianity and not biblical Christianity

Augustine was false teacher

Try the real deal .... burn your books and related

Turn to your Creator

Buy a KJV Bible and study your self approved .... only then will you know the truth

Your current off course striving is a dead ended road

.... and your time is short

St. Augustine did believe some weird things but he wasn't a false teacher. That's a gross generalization, emphasis on 'gross'.
God's wisdom is the way to go, yes, but the KJV Bible isn't the answer. God's Word is. Any reasonable translation will suffice.