| View Blog
|
|
|
He says I disrepected his father and mother by saying that by his beliefs, NOT MINE. My grandfather and grandmother are in hell. Along with my other grandfather who I loved more than life who died a very openminded man who studied Buddhism along with other religions in search of enlightenment. He likes to do what most Christians do for people they love that die. He says "They accepted christ near death!".......Whatever makes him happy I guess. Sighs, I did not disrespect my Grandfather and I loved them all very much and like to think they are at peace in death. Then on his 'blog" he keeps finding a few "scientists' for your anti-evolution agenda that is severly lacking. Just the fact that he called it "the Holy Cow' of science shows how little you hold science in regard. How can I have a discussion about anything that deals with science with someone who thinks a man can live in a whale for four days, snakes can talk, demons can live in pigs, man can be raised from the dead and we'll all float up to the sky in the future?
For every psuedo scientist he finds to discredtic evolution I can find 50 MORE who are CHRISTIANS that believe it, as well as the rest of the Christian dogma. He should stop trying to be smarter than he is, accept the fact that he is a little man, trying to act as though he has all the facts and all the answers.
I have. I don't have all the answers and I know I am insignificant in the scheme of things. In a hundred years no one will know I ever existed. Cool. I am fine with that. It gives me peace not making up answers to things I can't answer. I am fine not knowing, but I know I am still looking. Get off your evolution kick, it's done. It's being taught everywhere. The NAS (the National Association of Science) lists it as it being the most probable answer (note the probable because scientists never claim they are certain.) Your religion is dying bit by bit except in uneducated areas. Less than 1% of people in fields relating the subject believe in creationism. He must just find those little books for his proof. lol
The burden of proof is on him. Prove a snake can talk. Prove some can raise from the dead after three days. Prove someone can stand in fire for three days and still live, unburned. He is the last person to talk about science.
On a side note, he keeps talking about my 'pride'. I admit I know next to nothing. I called him to let him know Neitzche wasn't a nihilist. He couldn't have been farther from one. I am no expert in philosophy but I try and read up, slowly so I can absorb and think on what is said. Neitzche has been someone I have been reading a lot of lately. I am reading Beyond good and evil and will read Thus spoke Zarathrsta for a second time in a bit and I will read it more times simply to soak it all in. He spouts out with ten or fifteen people (Christians I assume) who I had never heard of. He asked me if I read them. I said I did not, why should I feel stupid for not reading every author out there? He then launched into how he knows mor than I'll ever know. Which may be true. I admit I am not wise or all knowing and have said in the past I will learn all my life and still die ignorant. But guess what, he hasn't read a single book of Neitzche and he acts as though he is the authority (calling him the father of nihlism). The point is, he calls me full of 'pride'? When he is some contest about who knows more? Is that not the definition of arrogance and pride? |
|
Posted by freethinker on 2008-04-15 17:46:07 | Rating: | Views: 116
|
| |
|
|
| Blog Comments
|
|
|
|
|
I met jesus once in a pub near yorkshire, I asked him about evolution. He said he didn't know much about it. He might not have been jesus, I was realy drunk. He said he was, I tend to believe people when I'm drunk. This must be what its like for religious types all the time.
|
|
Posted by yadokta
on 2008-04-15 19:51:25
|
|
|
|
i'd like to kno why all the crazy God freaks hang out in the subway. does jesus chill there 2? lmao
|
|
Posted by foxx_flie
on 2008-04-16 03:08:09
|
|
|
|
|
ur dad doesn't hang out on street corners & push his literature on passersby, does he?? lol j/p ;o)
|
|
Posted by foxx_flie
on 2008-04-16 03:08:59
|
|
|
|
|
lol, no he gives it to homeless people in shelters or in churches where people need something to grab onto. Religion prays on people who in this world are having a rough time and can't cope and the idea of a next one, which is perfect and where all their loved ones are waiting for them is what they need. People at their most vulnerable. You never see a preacher trying to convert a rich man do you? No, it's the poor that they ask for money......
|
|
Posted by freethinker
on 2008-04-16 10:09:22
|
|
|
|
|
pure evil if u ask me. disgusting. and means by which they almost conquered the world (and i still believe they are trying)
|
|
Posted by foxx_flie
on 2008-04-16 10:14:36
|
|
|
|
|
People take phamplets for toilet paper. The "Word" makes an excellent ass wiping material.
|
|
Posted by farsidde
on 2008-04-18 17:22:11
|
|
|
|
Freethinker,
This the first time I have ever responded to a “blog” site but had been following the exchange between yourself and journeyman, who I take it is your Father, so I thought I might drop in a few perceptions.
First, I am a married male with a 9 year old daughter. I graduated with a MSc in Molecular Microbiology from Victoria University of Wellington (NZ) and completing my PhD in the mid 90’s at John Hopkins. I work as a consultant for an AAM think tank as well as a fellow at a major University in the eastern United States.
Not meaning to be cryptic concerning descriptive detail, anonymity is a consideration in establishment of a profile. One of the points journeyman brought up was the “Holy Cow” of science. The idea of the development scientific dogma and orthodoxy is not new and has been discussed a number of books including Stephen Gould’s book. “ Darwinian Fundamentalism”. In some disciplines of scientific academia skepticism can be a cause for “censor”, “dismissal” or “loss of tenur”. Many scientists see common sense as an impediment to progress not only in physics but in other fields as well. Elevating this outlook to the status of dogma, British biologist Lewis Wolpert declared in “The Unnatural Nature of Science”, “I would almost contend that if something fits with common sense it almost certainly isn’t science”. Dr Wolpert’s view is widely shared. “When I invoke common sense to defend or criticize a theory, scientists invariably roll their eyes.” I am not yet ready with a wife and a young daughter to openly bring skeptical inquiry to question the veracity of claims and theories lacking empirical evidence. Not identifying with the more extreme examples of “skepticism” and “freethinkers” like Bertrand Russell, whose tirade of religious bigotry is almost the antithesis of “rationalist”, I am more inclined to define a skeptic as does Miguel de Unamuna, in his 1924 “Essays and Soliloquies”. “Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found”. This does not mean that truth cannot be found but a skeptic attempts to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather that accepting claims on faith. Questioning the validity of evidences within various disciplines supporting the evolutionary thesis can result in a very short career in the scientific community. One of my colleagues at a University in the Northwest United States brought up some obvious difficulties with gradual, random development as it relates to irreducible complexity…and found that his grant had been terminated…and he would no longer be rejoining the facility the following year. As I said, I am not ready for that yet.
Your father also brought up some excellent points, although rather simplistically, regarding specific assumptions of the macroevolutionary theory which is supported more on a priori philosophical assumption than on empirical evidence. The geologic column and its comparisons to actual fossil layers in sedimentary strata unaffected by upheaval or turnovers; the fallacies of Darwin’s examples of natural selection; the dozens of examples of fraud or the undeniable difficulties of irreducible complexity or uniformitarianism as it relates to macroevolution. I applaud those who have the courage to challenge the “holy cow” of scientific orthodoxy and dogma. Some of us are not in the position to do so without dire consequences.
Also one more point regarding your “Burden of Proof” which is inaccurate in three areas:
1) The Burden of Proof (onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in legal action only.
2) The belief in God (Thesism) is based upon faith and therefore does not qualify under a presentation of prima facia evidence..
3) The Burden of Proof ordinarily lies with “the one who complains” (necessitas incumbit ei que agit). In other words, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff (the one who complains or makes a claim) in a lawsuit to provide evidence supporting the claim against the defendant. but this burden of proof or persuasion, which began with the plaintiff may very quickly shift to the defendant as the case proceeds. As an example:
Plaintiff’s claim: The defendant robbed my house.
Proof: I saw him coming out of the back of my house with the television set.
(This may or may not be true but is determined as the case progresses)
Defendants Response: No I didn’t!! (He can respond to affirm or deny the claim)
Proof: I was at home with my wife. (alibi or affirmative defense)
Let’s try this again:
Plaintiff’s claim: I believe there is a creator God.
Proof: I see the evidence of intelligent design in the complexity of life forms, order and thought, intelligence and sentience.
(This may or may not be true but is determined as the case progresses)
Defendants Response: No there is not!!
Proof: Evolutionary theory and Uniformitarianism
At this point the burden of proof is squarely on those in the scientific community to provide verifiable evidence and allow the freedom of skeptical inquiry without fear of retaliation.
|
|
Posted by Unamuno
on 2008-04-21 03:24:43
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, one more small addendum. Galileo was one of the greatest scientists of our time. He was also a devout Christian. He stood up not only against the church....but the scientist of his time. As you said about your father... you could fill a room with scientist who would have called him a fool. Sounds like your father is in good company.
|
|
Posted by Unamuno
on 2008-04-21 03:34:18
|
|
|
|
|
Galileo had ginger hair. Thats a fact.
|
|
Posted by yadokta
on 2008-04-29 17:41:58
|
|
|
|
Repost from Farsidde....love it
"People take phamplets for toilet paper. The "Word" makes an excellent ass wiping material."
I once smoked a joint in Jamaica, no rolling papers and I had to try Jamaican weed although I dislike pot, in a page from Psalms. Didn't burn good but the scriptures tasted nicely :)
|
|
Posted by freethinker
on 2008-06-09 00:01:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
