mererdog

Point out where I said so? If the shoe does not fit... The Pulpit is not meant to be the only place people can preach. This is a forum for ministers. Preaching is to be expected in basically all areas of the forum. Attempting to push all preachy topics into the Pulpit would have the effect of stifling all conversations started by people who have a preachy style of communication, and by those whose beliefs are more concrete in nature.

Take your own advice? Consider the following words. Do they demonstrate an openness to possibility? "Macro evolution can not be proven. It can not be tested. It has not been reproduced. It can not be observed." The phrase "can not" is used to shut doors. Belief in impossibility prevents progress by convincing us to forego effort. In other words, Can't never could because Can't never tried. When we believe a thing cannot be done, we pooh-pooh reports that it has been done. Our belief innoculates us against evidence that our belief is wrong. We dont bother to look at it. If we look at it, we dont bother to take it seriously. If we take it seriously, we reduce it to a caricature. Your position here is strange to me. On the one hand, you want us to see other possibilities. On the other hand, you openly mock scientists using wording that denotes uncertainty. I am having trouble reconciling this.

If that is what you think, you did not understand the analogy. Probably my fault. Let me try to be more direct- If I say that someone is engaging in personal attacks, that in no way implies that anyone else is not engaging in personal atracks. If I don't point out when someone engages in personal attacks, it is likely because I don't think doing so will have the effect of deescalating the situation.

Personally, I don't like yodeling. Some people enjoy it.

If I say my wife is pretty, I have said nothing about how anyone else looks. If I dont tell your wife she is pretty, it is likely because I don't think she cares what I think.

Not really. I'm still trying to get you to clarify your earlier question. You asked "Why is it that evolution theory is not held to the same strict standards of observable, testable, predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence as other areas of science?" I was giving Dark Matter as an example of part of the "other areas of science" your question assumes are held to stricter standards than evolution theory. This was an invitation for you to highlight the contrast you implied.

To a degree. You agreed to terms of service. Those include a promise you made to refrain from personal attacks and abuse. Regardless of what you may think of someone, you have agreed to limit what you will say about them on this forum. One good way to earn respect is by keeping one's word, no?

And yet... Isn't that what you are doing here? You seem to be pushing your view onto him. You don't seem to be allowing that his way is valid. You mention Do Only That Which Is Right? From ulc.net- Every person has the natural right (and the responsibility) to peacefully determine what is right. We are advocates of religious freedom. The true test of religious freedom is whether we allow others the freedom to do things we find distasteful. The true test of religious tolerance is whether we can tolerate being told we are wrong.

So, what was the complaint about evolutionary theories? We see the characteristics of animal groups change through the generations. We see that animal remains change as we go back through the geological record. We make theories about the whys and hows of this evidence. We then use the hundreds of years worth of new evidence to refine our theories, discarding any that can't explain the new evidence. This is just how science works. At the same time, as we get further and further into the process, people become more and more personally convinced. Reputations get wagered on pet theories. A certain level of fraud becomes inevitable. The general public finds themselves taking sides in debates they don't fully understand. This is just how humans operate. So what is the complaint? What makes evolutionary scientists unique? How are their theories treated differently than those involving Dark Matter?

Is it not conceit on our end to presume conceit on his end? He leaves no room for the possibility that he is wrong about his God. You leave no room for the possibility that he is right about his God.

The serious answer is a lack of rocks and other debris. A better answer is how often it swears.

It's quite a rabbit hole, isn't it? Absent a supernatural "I" like a soul there must reasonably be a limit to how much brain we can lose before the "I" goes away. But how much? Which parts? If you lose you memories but not your personality? If you lose your personality but not your memory? If you put coffee in a teacup, is it still a teacup?

Saw those all the time in rural South Carolina. Another variation was "Clean Fill Dirt- Cheap" It always made me feel bad for the suckers who were getting overcharged for dirty dirt.

How much of your brain can you lose and still be you? Serious question...

There is a multiplying effect with communication advances. As it becomes easier for us to compare notes with one another, it becomes easier for each of us to look like a genius, you know? Add the actual geniuses into the mix, and we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Look how big we all look when we stand up here!

What was that you said about speculation and conjecture? Dingoes and jackals and dholes, oh my! So many possibilities for who descended from who. How did you pin a likelihood on your answer? I saw a genetic study where the scientists were convinced their evidence showed that wolves and dogs share a common ancestor, but that dogs are not descended from wolves. I don't claim to be able to understand the specifics of their research, much less reproduce it, but I also can't find any evidence that disproves their conclusion. Its a falsifiable claim, and there's a whole planet full of researchers looking to make a name for themselves by proving the other guy wrong. The truth will out, no?

In what way is it not? Evolutionary theories deal with things we cannot (currently) directly observe. The way science handles those sorts of things is to theorize based on available evidence, and alter and/or discard the theories as new evidence is produced. Consider this Evolutionary theories provide models for how the world works. Even if those models are inaccurate, they are useful. They are useful because they provide a research framework that can be built on. A lot of progress in fields like virology have been built on that framework.

Although, to be fair, we weren't trying to breed them into cows. We were just trying to breed "better" dogs. That purpose decided which puppies got to live and which adults got to breed, which shaped each successive generation. Remove that purpose from the process, allowing other pressures to determine who lives and breeds, and you would get different results.

It's an arbitrary distinction. Humans came up with classification systems that make sense to us, in order to organize our ideas and make communication easier. Those classification systems change over time as our knowledge grows, our understanding changes, and our communication needs evolve.

The belief I mentioned is that the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden is a metaphor designed to describe real things. The idea there is that it is the real things you need to be saved from, not the metaphors used to describe them. The story of the Tortoise and the Hare is not an accurate account of real events that happened to literal animals, but it teaches about real dangers like overconfidence, right? It's the same basic concept. Some of those people do believe that Hell Fire is a metaphor. Some believe that souls that cannot be reconciled cease to exist, and that the fires are meant to be descriptive of that process. Some believe that Hell is real, but that the fires are descriptive of some more metaphysical cause of anguish. There is a fair amount of variety in Christian thought.

I've known a lot of Christians who do not believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve, but still believe in the Fall and Original Sin as metaphor. They still believe in a need to be saved, and in a need for a redeemer.

Birth control and baby formula have been the most powerful gender-equalizing forces the world has ever known...

If you swap out "relationship" for "community," it goes a long way towards explaining why it might be easier for white guys to label themselves atheists than for members of historically oppressed minority groups to do so.

I made no demands. You are free to make illogical conclusions. We all do it. But it is what it is, and it is valuable to know what it is. There are many times when we do not have enough information to form a logical conclusion, but we must still make a decision. We do not always have the luxury of wait and see. So we go with best guesses, gut instincts, what feels right and what has the ring of truth. This is normal, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it, but it is not logic. The problems occur when we attempt to justify the decision. When we start trying to prove ourselves right, rather than trying to ensure we are right. We get defensive. We lose the ability to be fair.