tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post751479513138552692..comments2008-10-29T03:37:29.670-04:00flobinoreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-91779440943607777182008-10-29T03:37:00.000-04:002008-10-29T03:37:00.000-04:00

Gravity: masses attract other masses - observable, repeatable. Volcanic eruptions cause igneous rock to form - observable, repeatable. Earth spins on it's axis - observable, repeatable. Sand traveling down a mountain river - observable, repeatable. <BR/><BR/>But I like the sand down a river comparison. We observe millions upon millions of grains of sand, and eventually they all go down the

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-41485615044375543832008-10-28T17:57:00.000-04:002008-10-28T17:57:00.000-04:00

one more item...<BR/><BR/>I'm really glad you pointed out that "transitional fossils don't exist unless UCD is presumed because the transitions they supposedly demonstrate don't exist unless you first presume UCD".<BR/><BR/>I would agree to a certain point. Transitional fossils don't exist unless you first had modern human categorization of species. Otherwise, they are simply dead plants and

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-86307973110138811202008-10-28T17:50:00.000-04:002008-10-28T17:50:00.000-04:00

You are trying to correlate the inability to observe every evolutionary change with the inability to accept as fact that any of them happened. We don't do this with any other area of science. We don't doubt if gravity accounts for some things falling, but not all things that have ever fallen in the past just because we were not there to witness them. If the dirt at the end of a river matches

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-25766630763887617952008-10-27T21:34:00.000-04:002008-10-27T21:34:00.000-04:00

All words are made up. Macroevolution was "made up" in 1927 by a Russian entomologist. You sound like you are dissatisfied with that word, so I found a better phrase. According to the descriptions on Wikipedia, what I described (successive alterations led from the earliest proto-organism to mankind over a period of millions of years) is not macroevolution (at least not exclusively), but a

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-24400883943884464992008-10-24T12:07:00.000-04:002008-10-24T12:07:00.000-04:00

There are volumes of proof. Almost every category of science has provided clear evidence of evolution (macro-evolution if you want to use a made up word).<BR/><BR/>The thousands of transitional species (missing-links if you will) found in the fossil record are the best evidence. More recently, DNA evidence has been the smoking gun. New fossil findings and now DNA study has confirmed what Darwin

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-63415235063645989882008-10-23T00:31:00.000-04:002008-10-23T00:31:00.000-04:00

"It was like that for many decades (remember the scopes trials), but the facts of evolution have been so accepted now that it is old news." Then what is the evidence for, again for convenience, macroevolution, that doesn't rely on macroevolution first presumed in order to be conclusive?

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-35420959692803235342008-10-22T17:33:00.000-04:002008-10-22T17:33:00.000-04:00

<I>"Wouldn't you say that something like that would be thrown in the face of Creationists all the time, it would be all over the news and the science journals and channels?"</I><BR/><BR/>It was like that for many decades (remember the scopes trials), but the facts of evolution have been so accepted now that it is old news. Nobody stands on the rooftops and screams about the scientific discovery

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-14805311696993659542008-10-22T16:28:00.000-04:002008-10-22T16:28:00.000-04:00

"I'll stand with you in rejecting their claims." I appreciate that. Again, as I've said, I've yet to see any evidence for, for convenience let's say macroevolution, that doesn't rely on macroevolution first presumed in order to be conclusive. Wouldn't you say that something like that would be thrown in the face of Creationists all the time, it would be all over the news and the science

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-84463986420678878892008-10-22T14:52:00.000-04:002008-10-22T14:52:00.000-04:00

<I>"so Greek context is irrelevant."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I'm talking about 2 contexts. The first being ancient Hebrew context of 500-800 BCE (roughly) and speaking largely Aramaic but captured for us in Hebrew and Greek versions. The second being 1st - 3rd century culture in Palestine areas of the Roman Empire captured for us in Greek. I think it is crazy to ignore the Greek usage of words.

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-68939357384409709702008-10-22T13:14:00.000-04:002008-10-22T13:14:00.000-04:00

Okay, you can have your uncertain faith, you're going to have it anyways and I think we both understand what each of us is saying (to the extent that we can). But I saw no point in pulling the Greek words that are translated into faith when the statement we were discussing was never in Greek, so Greek context is irrelevant. <BR/><BR/>As far as evolution goes, biological evolution may be slight

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-8363610859266916882008-10-22T10:17:00.000-04:002008-10-22T10:17:00.000-04:00

Josh, you are not being realistic about the nuance of language. Belief, trust, faith, confidence, and certainty are diverse words with much nuance. You are being either naive or intentionally dishonest to simply suggest being synonyms makes words absolutely equal in meaning. No language (even English) is that void of complexity. Also, you are ignoring the basic principles of exegesis.<BR/> <

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-38533612930617423362008-10-22T00:44:00.000-04:002008-10-22T00:44:00.000-04:00

Ah, my dear friend, I have sympathy on you for whatever has corrupted your vocabulary. Faith in English means belief or trust, which both mean confidence, which means certainty, which is why the thesaurus lists all of these as synonyms of each other. Are we not communicating in English? :)<BR/><BR/>But really, I have no intention of entertaining the idea of changing the meanings of words,

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-30149746112285141362008-10-21T11:53:00.000-04:002008-10-21T11:53:00.000-04:00

I don't think it makes any sense to ask a "yes or no" question of God's existence. I'm willing to say God exists (so "yes" if you must ask), but I'm also willing to say I don't know what a "God existence" would be. You freely admit that God is not molecules. Then what is it? Can you say with any certainty what it is, where it is, or how it works?<BR/><BR/>I know some things about a human

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-88223275657017875382008-10-21T09:09:00.000-04:002008-10-21T09:09:00.000-04:00

I don't see what things you have said (I didn't say your views, I said the things you "say") align with The Episcopal Church or The Churches of Christ as a whole. "Some progressive Catholics" does not qualify as a denomination and I don't think Unitarian is generally considered a part of Christianity. I'm sure you could fine some "progressive" anythings that would agree with most anything that

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-45418249190651158992008-10-20T11:08:00.000-04:002008-10-20T11:08:00.000-04:00

<I>"what is it that makes you say you are Christian when you don't know Jesus and so few of the things you say align with any major denomination"</I><BR/><BR/>What makes you say I don't "know" Jesus? What makes you say I don't align with any major denomination? My views were the prevalent view at one time and are still widely accepted under a variety of Progressive denominations (episcopal,

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-70350080958366210932008-10-20T03:03:00.000-04:002008-10-20T03:03:00.000-04:00

I'm sure you wouldn't agree, besides, though it reminds me of my views a year ago (it would probably be safer to say 2 years ago), it is still quite different. Perhaps I didn't mean, "I understand," more than, "I can relate," and that, not as a whole, but to parts of it. <BR/><BR/>Pretty much, I forcibly denied God's existence intellectually during that period of my life, despite having known

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-10819414952157599832008-10-17T00:19:00.000-04:002008-10-17T00:19:00.000-04:00

You'd have to describe where you were a year ago before I'd know if we agree at that point. But if your views somehow made you depressed, then I seriously doubt it. There is nothing only liberation, joy, and a deeper admiration for Jesus and the Bible in the views I've discovered in the last 10 years of religious exploration in study. <BR/><BR/>I doubt you could have held those views based on

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-10419450523928921852008-10-16T23:26:00.000-04:002008-10-16T23:26:00.000-04:00

I hope you aren't offended, but you don't make sense. You say that I don't treat you like a Christian sometimes (and again, I apologize), indicating that you consider yourself one, but also, you say "In a way, you might say that is agnosticism or a soft form of atheism." And each of those three ideas are mutually exclusive. But strangely enough, I actually understand. The more you describe

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-55132433981987691252008-10-16T15:55:00.000-04:002008-10-16T15:55:00.000-04:00

Thanks for your response and apology. I'm no saint and this particular method of communication lends itself to cold responses and harsh reactions. It isn't a good medium to communicate the kind of emotional topics that clearly have changed both our lives. This is why I'd continue to lobby for a face to face conversation at some point.<BR/><BR/>The worst thing that I think can happen in a

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-45286598028304556522008-10-16T00:10:00.000-04:002008-10-16T00:10:00.000-04:00

The 17th word in the last paragraph should be spent, past tense, sorry if there's confusion on that, but I can't seem to edit my comment.

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-75520163342043771042008-10-16T00:04:00.000-04:002008-10-16T00:04:00.000-04:00

I understand that accepting Christ does not preclude science. Observational science and Biblically based historical science are in accordance with the Bible. I think reading the literal historic events (as indicated by lack of allegoric or metaphoric tools which are present in ancient Hebrew as well as Greek, but not employed) as allegorical does not preclude accepting Jesus as ones savior, but

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-46085392334759681982008-10-15T10:09:00.000-04:002008-10-15T10:09:00.000-04:00

I'm just wondering if you've ever known that accepting Christ doesn't require rejecting science or reading the Bible literally. I'm interested to know if you would have this reaction to science if you didn't assume that your love of God and respect for the Bible demanded a literalistic reading. Have you ever spoken in detail with anyone or read a detailed book about a non-literal view of

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-19202256169026310512008-10-13T13:24:00.000-04:002008-10-13T13:24:00.000-04:00

(Yes, I will admit that in some of the above comment, I'm grouping cosmic evolution and biological evolution together.)

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-87268206085570724162008-10-13T13:16:00.000-04:002008-10-13T13:16:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure what kind of book swap you're looking for. I can get my hands on all the pro-naturalism media anyone else can myself. We've got the Science channel which I watch a lot despite it's naturalism undertones (actually, a lot of times, it's very direct). And despite directly teaching evolution, I am actually quite fond of Nova on PBS though I don't know it's schedule so I don't watch it

flobihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620154542750126129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3930463144299016442.post-87556200359174256982008-10-13T09:01:00.000-04:002008-10-13T09:01:00.000-04:00

Maybe if you are interested, we could do a book swap so we can grow to understand each other better. I'll read one of yours and you can read one of mine. I suspect many of the age old arguments withing Christianity come from a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to hear other view points despite being brothers in Christ. Would you be interested in that?

Mike L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.com