PLD

No, you can't save 'em all. But you can reach a few. Many in fact. Many more than you are reaching today. You can sell your boat and buy a warehouse full of tracts. You can skip Monday night football and go preach in the square. You can explain to you kids that a missionary trip to rural Mississippi is more important that the family vacation to the beach. You can explain to the wife that she can't have that new dress while people still die unknowing. Every day there are hundreds, if not thousands, or opportunities to make choices that increase the spread of the word of Christ. And we pass on them all because it would affect OUR comfort, OUR lifestyle, OUR pleasure. There is NOTHING Christlike about working to buy a new TV while people die without knowing God. While children die without every having seen a bible. You can make all the justifications you want as to why you were unable to do these things, but the bottom line is that you were able to do them and you made a decision not to. Which means that either you are not as strong of a believer as you profess, or you value the tiny little material things far more than the mortal soul of your fellow man. There really only are two choices here; Either you are selfish at an unspeakbly evil level, or your faith only extends far enough to CYA. And if the latter is true, that's not faith, that's just fear. Take Bin Laden, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate: Their followers had true faith. Sadly, it was misplaced, but it was still true. They believed in their heart that every word was the inerrant word of their god and they behaved in that fashion. They would have professed their god as king over all and smiled as they walked into the furnace. And that is faith in the inerrant word...

Yes, you can. Lots of people make this very decision. You choose not to. No, it would mean taking them with you and adjusting to a new lifestyle in service. COST EFFECTIVE? What is the cost of eternal damnation? Who paid that tremendous price because your ROI wasn't good enough if you took time of to do missionsry work? Justify all you wish if it helps you sleep at night. But the choices are still yours.

First, I agree with what you say about God and doctors. My point is this. You cannot both profess loudly that the word to be inerrant, and at the same time be shaky about your faith in it. Either your mind is without a single doubt about it's infallability, or your mind has doubts about it. There is no middle ground. The difference between you and I is that I verbalize my doubts while you only let them show through your actions. With the penalty being eternal damnation, and people being damned for simple ignorance, I cannot see how he meant anything less. The rest is just justification of your choices. THEY are better prepared, THEY were called. Christ said GO FORTH AND TEACH, not SEND A CHECK. I wasn't talking about the size of your house vs the missionaries hut. I was referring to you having a car and a TV while the remote places of the world face damnation from simple ignorance. I go back to my earlier statement; If you believe without doubt as you and others claim to do, then to let tens of thousands of people each day go to hell while you stay here and accumulate possessions is probably the single most evil thing imaginable. Even at his worst, Adolph Hitler did not kill 34,000 people a day. And hundreds of thousands of Americans left their homes & families behind and gave their only life to stop it. The did it because the truly BELIEVED. I know more about Him that you could ever imagine. Americans sit back here in our opulence and air conditioning and pay lip service to faith. Sure, we go to church, share with our friends, drop a few tracts in a phone booth or two, and ocassionally we even make a feeble attempt share with non-believers on visitation night. We excuse our apathy with satans influence, and the original sin. But the truth is that we are just unwilling to really sacrifice of ourselves in any meaningful way. Why not? A true believer in the word would do everything in their power to save people from hell. They would give their physcial life (and go to heaven) to save your eternal life from the fires of hell. But we don't do that, we don't do it every day, and we don't do it on a massive scale. Either we are the most evil, sadistic, selfish group of people to ever walk the face of this planet, or we really don't believe quite a strongly as we like to run around professing. Since most people I have met are inherently good people, the later is most likely the truth.

Not directly, but you can share the word with that lone aboriginal on a tiny island who has never heard the word of God.

But you have run across that situation. As I mentioned, you will miss 34,000 of them today while you work... And you neither put down your tools, nor crawl broken glass to save them.

You would. And re-dressing Mike's comment about the bible being take it or leave it; If you truly believed in your heart what the bible said about being cast into the lake of fire to burn in agony for all eternity, you would crawl on your hands and knees over a mile of broken glass to save just one person from that. If you are not willing to do that to save one person from hell, then you don't believe the bible, you just pay lip service to believing the bible. Tomorrow while you work, 50880 people will die around the world and only 33% of them will be Christian. That means that while you work 33,580 people will die without Christ and end up in hell. Now, I ask you; Do you pick and choose what to believe, or are you just so completely selfish that you would let 34k people burn so you could have a new TV?

And that is the HUGE difference between you and I. I do not feel that acceptance of the bible is an all or nothing proposition. I am perfectly content with believing in the divinity of Christ, yet disbelieving that water literally covered the entire planet for 40 days. And, I would bet that most Christians (yourself included) pick and choose as they feel appropriate. Disagree? Do you utilize doctors? If you had true faith you would skip the doctor and walk into the furnace without fear. Yet, you do not. Why not? Do you not believe the bible when it says you God will protect you? Do you know for a fact that the sabbath falls on Sunday? Saturday? Tuesday? Are you sure that you observe it on the proper day? Have you ever spent more than 20 minutes thinking about it? Have you ever researched it yourself. It's not a suggestion, it is a COMMANDMENT. #4 in fact: Remember the sabbath and keep it holy. Not remember _A_ sabbath and keep it a high priority for you unless it falls on your vacation, when you're at the PWNA convention, superbowl sunday, or another more important day. Do you go forth unto all the world, or just the part of it near home? No, not a mission trip once every 5 years. Christ didn't say go forth when it works into your pre-planned vision of your life. How can you possibly justify that people in remote parts of the world are dying and going to eternal hell because you had to work and make money so you could have a nice house and a big screen TV? I could go on for pages. The bottom line is that ALL Christians pick and choose the bible as they see fit. If your church accepts your choices like missing a Sunday here and there for 'special' events, it's ok. You NEED to see a doctor, so that's ok. What? You think the flood was a parable? Heretic! Christ had nothing material. He never took a wife, or owned property. He walked everywhere he went, associated with whores, touched the lepers, and washed the feet of the servants. When is the last time you sat at a bus stop and just offerred compassion to a *****? Invited a homeless man into your home? Sold all your possessions and used the proceeds to fund your own personal mission trip to outer bolmaria? Is your bible unerring unless is asks you to do something way out there, then it's just a guide, parable, or an interpretation. The bottom line is that ALL Christians (i.e. Christ like) pick and choose from the bible as they see fit. I just don't try and pretend that I don't.

I think we must agree to disagree. For several reasons, one of which is that I cannot succesfully address a 60 line post covering theology, physics, chemistry, etc. w/o replying para for para. I can understand how it is annoying to read, but replying without subdivisions is a nightmare.

Excellent post Dan. It adds a great deal to the discussion.

No. <pad>

That makes you perfectly normal. It is a reach. It is speculation. We can and will never know. As for the raw materials, study quantum theory. Something appears from nothing quite readliy. Here, you and I agree solidly. Disproof of evolution is not proof of creation. Yes, the theory does get stretched pretty thin. Not without *much* support, but certainly without *adequate* scientific support. Actually, the experiment synthesized most of the common amino acids. No recipes, No catalysts. Just methane gas, ammonia gas, water, and a spark. The heat was only added to create evaporation/ condensation cycles found naturally. It's actually not a leap as the experiment was specifically engineered to simulate a natural environment. I assume you are referring to entropy. That does not apply to matter, only energy. As much as the environment is speculation, so is the fact that it would NOt be conducive to amino acids. Yes, but the lottery is a series of isolated incidents. Evolutionary developent is a sequence of connected events. It's like playing the lottery 1mm times and each time the last number cannot be picked. And given the size of the earth, thousands of identical lotteries are happening in parallel. No so, There are colloids that metabolize w/o growth. And there are chemical compounds that self replicate. We do not yet know of a non-living organization that does both. But it's not that far fetched as we have seen both traits in non-living structures. Molecular self-replication is not common and observed at all levels of molecular complexity. Most often, it has little to do with breaking chains. I cannot say that the path is paved and has handrails installed. But I can say that if you will look more closely at the gory, boring details, you will see that there are stepping stones in the river, and the jump is not as far as you may believe it to be. I am not using that as an example in support of evolution. In fact, it's probably a better con argument. I am using it as an example of why we can't develop an experiment that proves once and for all that abogenesis occurred. It's a reasonable doubt. Not nearly as insanely far as you presently think it is once you know and process all the data, but still a big jump. I have no problem with the idea that it's too far for you to grasp. I do have a problem with it being portrayed as running jump over the grand canyon. It's only that if you cannot, or will not, look at the data that exists. Rememeber, abiogenesis is a specialized case of evolution. Evolution is required for abiogenesis, but abogenesis is not needed for evolution. In fact, by definition evolution cannot prove/disprove abiogenesis.

Accidentally? Again, that is your word not mine. There is nothing accidental about evolutionary theory. Do I believe that he created mankind specifically and explicitly? No. Do I believe that the entire universe exists solely as a stage on which the God-man relationship plays? No. Do I believe that we are the only living beings in the universe? Over all time, no. At this moment, most likely. Do I believe that the known universe exploded from a singlularity? Yes. Do I have a problem with the entirety of the universe existing in a point smaller than the head of a pin? no.

Yep. Because each time I start to say what I believe, my opinion is met with a hearty assault of reasons why my opinion is invalid. I have NO desire to win. How do I win by tearing down someone else's faith? If there is a God, I have committed a mortal sin. If there is no God, I have robbed them of something that brings them great peace and confort. Either way, it takes a great deal of bitterness to try and win. As for the discussion, you can play by whatever rules you wish. I am not the arbiter of your actions. However, if you wish to engage me in conversation further we will do so in a much less one sided manner. And that means that you share your opinion, I share mine, and we discuss it. Thus far it has been a whole lot of I share my opinion, and you give me 20 reasons why I am wrong. I think you are confusing evolution and abiogenesis... That said I here's my thoughts (in order); - Evolution is a fact. Abiogensis is up for debate. - It *is* a far reach, and those gaps *are* widely promulgated as assumptions (i.e. theory) - If science supports the existence of God, I have not seen any examples. I would welcome any you have to offer. - The bible is silent on evolution, but directly decries abiogenesis in Gen 1&2

Then I apologize. Since you stated that christianity and evolution are exclusive, I ASS-U-ME-d that you were asking if he recanted. That, and Darwin's deathbed confession is frequently regurgitated as an attack on evolution. With you being con, and me being pro, I again ASS-U-ME-d that you were making an anti-evolutionary case. In any case, he neither recanted nor reaffirmed his christianity. He became increasingly athestic (agnostic is his words) right until he died. As for blaming, I have only leveled two charges against you. Those being; A) that you will only attack the opposition and never support your own postion. and B) that you do so by re-posting other peoples work & opinions. If I wanted Mitchell's anti-evolution opinion, I would go and read his book. I come here to listen to and discuss your opinions. If you are just going send me other peoples opinions, then I'm wasting my time here. The question itself is valid, but in the context of this discussion you must have had more of a reason for asking it than simple curiosity.

I agree. We do tell the customer not to bother moving patio furniture and other quick and easy items, but ask that they move everything "breakable, or not suitable to be washed" I have on more than one ocassion seen much more stuff when we arrive than when we bid. I guess they figure it will get washed. The only time I charge extra is when they are completely inconsiderate and it is obvious that in their opinion we are just hired labor. As such, they expect that they need do nothing except pay the bill.

Before I reply, I'd like to say that I think it can be something other than no-win and with intelligent opinions like yours it will be. What I like about the post: You have posted your opinions on the subject, not someone's elses. From there we can have a discussion. What I dislike about the post: You seem to have a creationist view yet you only discussed contra-evolutionary opinions. Absolutely correct. Micro-evolution is a documented fact, but the existence of micro-evolution does not prove (or even address) abiogenesis. abiogenesis, however, does however require evolution. And that's where the confusion comes into play. abiogenesis is a very specialized case of evolution. Much like a red 1983 Porsche 911 turbo is a very specialized instance of "car". FWIW, the theory survival of the fittest is also a very specialized case of evolution. The being that because of differing mortality rates, only evolutionary traits that enhance an organisms ability to survive will remain in the gene pool. Their is nothing wrong with you position. You are saying that "I have seen the evidence, formed an opinion, and my opinion does not agree with yours". That is a far cry from "you are wrong, therefore I am right" And self-replicating. Don't forget that, because we can create complex compounds that metabolize much like living organisms. But they cannot self replicate. The some manner is no longer up for debate. We have replicated amino acids from common gasses in primitive conditions like those found in the wild. And the experiment is so simple that it can be replicated in any high-school lab. The "jump start", however, is not accurate. Abiogenesis is not dr. frankenstein and the lighting bolt. It's a hypothesis about an unknown number of steps between amino acid soup and basic life forms. Since we do not understand the processes, we obviously cannot replicate them. We try to gain a better understanding by investigating the building blocks of life as we know it and speculating why these building blocks came together. And we can look at evolutionary premutations of these building blocks and see if they support our ideas of why. But in the end, it is a work in progress. It is because of this that abiogenesis is the theory that most people (including evolutionists) have a problem with. I only seperated this from the previous section to make one point to everyone. If the "shaking parts in a bag" model is the only one you have to describe abiogenesis, you are significantly lacking in information on the subject. I will grant you that abiogenesis theory is far from complete, and leaves lots of room for rejection, but "accidental" and/or "random" have nothing to do with the facts, evidence, and theories regarding abiogenesis. You are putting "eat" in terms of an animal. But that's an improper frame of reference. Energy can obtained from many forms such as the sun. As can "food". Organisms that produce their own food are called autotrophs Plants belong that group because the produce food from sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water (photosynthesis). Unless I'm mistaking your point, I just addressed that. Well warranted sarcasm. Many a scientist has observed the problems with picking a theory and trying to support it. Unfortunately, at present we have no other theory that we can test analytically. So until someone presents a new hypothesis that is plausible, and meets known fact, were stuck with this one. To start with, we don't fully understand the process. That makes it very difficult to replicate them. Second, most of the skills required to actually reproduce what we do know are still science fiction. For example it takes a huge supercomputer 3 months to simulate a single protein fold. Your desktop PC would take 30+ years. How long would it take to actually make one? Furthermore, because there is big money to be made folding proteins, the research is not being shared and discussed openly. Take Eli Lilly for example. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by dozens of companies on research, EL is the only company that knows how to fold the simple protein we know as insulin. And they aren't telling ANYONE. If you will start seriously digging deeper, you will find that there is a great deal more than speculation going on. And barring the ocassional kook or publicity w**re, most of it is credible. Whether or not it changes your mind is a decision that you will have to make alone. You may not even wish to have your mind changed, and that is a legitimate choice as well. But to base your decision on the idea that the knowledge base is minimal or incredible is faulty logic.

It's time to stain our PT deck. Since it has been fairly neglected (but excellently restored), I suggested Ready Seal medium brown. VETO! Wife wants it done "as natural as possible". Any suggestions to accomplish "as natural as possible" and have UV protection? Philip

I was replying to Pauls post that Darwin recanted and your interpretation of the excerpt I posted. But you are correct. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of creationism. Supporters of creationism seem to be really fond of the idea that Darwin was a closet Christian or had some sort of conversion and recanted all he wrote during his life. If it were true, it would be noteworthy that the "father" of modern evolutionary thought altered his views that dramatically. Even so, the significance of a single deathbed conversion as a contrarian argument is minimal as his theories have since been reviewed and accepted by hundreds of prominent scientists.

No, I am afraid he did not. In that writing he was musing his own internal debates regarding the issue. So, taking the last sentence of that paragraph out of context of the first one may seem to support the idea that Darwin had a creationist leaning. But not if you explore his other writings: "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God" - Charles Darwin "I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." - Charles Darwin "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows." - Charles Darwin And if that isn't enough to convince you, the pro-creationism web site "answersingenesis.org" maintains a list of arguments that should NOT be used in support of creationism because they are known to be false and hence using them detracts from the credibility argument. Here is the #1 item from that list: “Darwin recanted on his deathbed - Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Paul, I will not answer your question. At least not until you can engage in some manner of discussion that somewhat more two dimensional than me making a point and then you shredding it. Even in this short post, you have carefully (and transparently) crafted your words and mine so that any answer I give will either appear evasive of the question or incongrous with prior comments. Even if I was up for the spanish inquisition that will ensue, I woudn't start until you made at least a fleeting effort to support your own position. Just suffice it to say that my thoughts (and words) on the subject are not in conflict no matter how badly you wish them to be.

He did? The origin of species was published in 1859. In 1860 he wrote: "With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."

Not neccesssarily.

Actually I did. Read back a little (between the rhetoric) and you will find that I not only believe in God, but that I also believe in the divinty of Jesus Christ. And while not said specifically, I meant it to infer that I am a Christian who knows Jesus as his lord and savior. All's fair in love and war. I'm pounding pretty heavily on Paul's shoulders... I welcome your thoughts. Yep. I even believe that he DID do it. I just don't believe that he did it as detailed in Genesis ch 1&2.

And if you will look at the origins information we have today you will find lots of words like theory and hypothesis. If you take Darwins theory and extrapolate it backwards 3 billion years, you reach the conclusion that we started as gasses in the atmosphere and evolved from there. That idea is called abiogenesis. Periodically science comes across a new discovery that is consistent with that idea. Over time, there have been many such discoveries that were consistent with the idea and the idea of biogenesis become a theory unto itself. As more and more evidence is located, more and more people accept the theory of abiogeneis as fact. Are these discoveries being affected by the Heisenberg effect? I feel certain they are. But that does not change the fact that the mission of science is objectivity and that most true scientists adhere to the scientific method as much as humanly possible.

Actually, having wandered these halls with you for quite awhile I have enjoyed your company quite a bit and will do so in the future. I do not, however, like your way of conducting a debate. I'm not surprised. Reading and developing original thought supporting your position is much more difficult than just copy & paste. <yet more volumes of anti-evolution material deleted> I think we have finally gotten to the truth of the matter...