May you all have peace (at least, those of you who wish to receive it)! Quite a bit to respond to/comment on, so please bear with me, if you can/care to.
Next time he pops in for a chat tell him Cofty says he is a prick for ignoring those in need who don't happen to know his secret moniker
You should feel free to tell Him yourself, dear Cofty. Not that His doesn't hear you. But, surely, you don't need me to deliver any messages for you.
No need to act like a b*tch, Shelly. Otherwise we might have be forced to consider you a nasty slang name for the girly bits.
Sigh. As if you don't consider that already dear EP (peace to you... and don't YOU sound "familiar"!). The only thing that stops "you" from actually doing it is the board rules. So, come off it already.
we all get the point.
Apparently, not all of you...
Science changes and that smacks of "new light" and you consider it untrustworthy.
With regard to some things, yes, I do. Same as with various "interpretations" of what's in the Bible. No difference. Either blue is true... or red. Just because we BELIEVE blue is true... TODAY... doesn't mean it IS. If RED is true, then blue was NEVER true... regardless of when it was that we THOUGHT it was.
That's how science works.
That's my point; and it's much like religion, IMHO (that the two actually once went hand in hand is interesting. True, they did fracture at some point, but there IS that "baggage" that usually hangs around "after" religion)...
If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you don't realize you made mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you can't admit your mistakes, you're not doing it at all.
Ummmmm... isn't that what the WTBTS... the Vatican... the Council of Churches... and most of the rest of them say? How, then, is science different in this regard?
We just trust a process that exposes mistakes and moves towards correcting them more than someone that hears voices in their head.
"You" do. Others not necessarily. My point, however, is... how is changing "light" based on the exposure of MISTAKES... DIFFERENT?
Unlike proceeding from a starting point where you are sure you are right, science asks questions and becomes more right over time.
Ummmmmm... I think I have heard more "religious" people/leaders say they DON'T know ("God is a mystery!" "God works in mysterious ways!") than I have heard them say they do know.
I expect you to dismiss this as "not getting the point", but the reality, voices in your head aside, is that this process is proven to work. Yours isn't.
First, no voices in my head, dear one. That you refuse to understand that tells me that you DON'T get my point (as to that truth, at least). Second, I understand that the "process" is proven to work... WHEN it works (i.e., proves something). Again, that was NOT my point.
With regard to Cofty's name, Shelly, if the god in your head makes such a big deal out of getting its name right, you could at least show the same respect to Cofty.
You think I disrespected Cofty. Nope. I only gave Cofty what s/he said should be the case: a name shouldn't matter. If it matters to someone as... well, let's say, "human" as Cofty, such that s/he literally took issue with it (c'mon, I know his/her avatar is "Cofty")... why should we assume that a name is NOT important to the Most Holy One of Israel? "Cofty" isn't even his/her real name. Yet, s/he was "offended" that I "didn't get it right." Why is that? I mean, if it really SHOULDN'T matter and all? Why take issue over a misstated AVATAR name? THAT's what I mean by "hypocrite." You know, someone who wants someone else to give THEM more leeway than they're willing to give others...
Even if we had all the pieces of the puzzles Shelby would be asking for the missing links to the missing links, then the missing links to those missing links.
Again, this wasn't about the missing pieces of the puzzle, dear NS (peace to you, too!)... but the "picture" that is "painted"... in spite of MOST of the pieces missing. If all of the pieces were there, there could be no mistakes... and no "theory". The picture would be complete... and indisputable. That some have tried to insert "pieces" in wrong places... and/or pieces from entirely DIFFERENT puzzles... that have little or no bearing on the actual picture... and then say the puzzle is "complete" and the resultant image is "fact"... is, IMHO, the exact same thing that religionists do. NO difference. Again, though, I find it interesting that, like religionists... some of ya'll can't "see" this. Methinks neither should call the other "blind"... as both are without COMPLETE sight.
You say; "it was not an attempt to discredit evolution".
It wasn't, dear Abaddon (peace to you and welcome back!). It was not about evolution at all. It was about [changing] "facts"... and the associated hypocrisy.
You also say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."
No. I did NOT say that. I QUOTED that from the article... and said that I was SURPRISED to even read that.
Which of those two statements is true dear?
Well, the first is certainly true. The second, I can only surmise is true, based on what the articles says such admissions state.
I and others addressed this directly and it is discourious of you to ignore this and deceitful of you to say otherwise.
No. You and others addressed the difference between scientific evidence and spiritual evidence (based on faith). But that was NOT the issue. The ISSUE is one camp decrying the changes in statements of "fact" of another, while they themselves change "fact." They, too, find it hard to say, "We don't REALLY know." I don't have a problem with them NOT saying such... except to the extent some of YOU take issue with OTHERS... who do the SAME thing. You point fingers at other camps... while YOUR camp does the very thing you point fingers ABOUT. Again, that you can't SEE that is... interesting...
One example would be my son's grave illness in his youth. The doctors said, "Ma'am, it IS either this... or this... and THIS is what we MUST do." They based that on the "evidence" (i.e., multitude of tests, blood work, GI series, ultrasound, CT scan, etc). NO ONE said, "We really don't KNOW." For myself, I HEARD... as they were telling me... that they were in error... that it was NOT what they were diagnosing... not even close... and so did not let them do the particularly surgery they intended to do. I HEARD that they would get a court order (and they did), but not to worry because they weren't going to be allowed to do their surgery. I HEARD... NOT to worry... but to be patient and my son would be fully taken care of and fine. And that is exactly what occurred.
Now, I couldn't/can't PROVE what I heard... and from whom... in a manner satisfactory to "science"; however, the RESULT... was that "science" (based on the evidence)... was WRONG. VERY wrong. Of course, the opinion was that what I heard was merely a fluke, an unexplained phenomenon. Perhaps. But that was only one example. After you hear SO much, however... and it is ALWAYS right... and "science" is very often WRONG... you tend to go with the "right" side. At least, I do. BUT... that wasn't the POINT, either.
"There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None."
This is true. There is only evidence that SUGGESTS (to some, reasonably), human evolution.
"In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood."
This, too, is true. At least, according to some archeologists...
You didn't say 'C'mon, believers of scientific theories of all forms and nature.' You specified evolutionists to counter your arguments.
You are absolutely right, dear Silence (peace to you, as well!). I directed it to evolutionists because the article was with reference to the potential "changes" in what is currently accepted as "fact" regarding human evolution. If that was misleading, I sincerely apologize.
Science by definition is a process
I do not dispute that, dear sizemik (peace to you!). This was about the truth... that "science" changes, too (no problem), but that many HERE... act as if it does not and take HUGE issue when entities like the WTBTS introduce "new light." Again, I MARVEL that some of you can't... no, I think it's more like REFUSE... to see the hypocrisy.
But everyone hang onto your hat because I have to say that, perhaps for the FIRST time... I am EXUBERATED that OTWO is here. At least, he understood what I meant. And he didn't need to dig too deep to do it, so I KNOW I wasn't all that confusing...
I see your point that I (and others) have (to put it frankly) ridiculed you proposing eg. the australiphicus (AU) fossils is really the result of eg. illness or other deformities, and now the same explanation is being proposed to explain certain homo floresiensis (FL) fossils.
THANK you, dear BOHM (and the greatest of love and peace to you!)!! That's part of it, yes, that and other responses/comments. In this case (yours), this is what is proposed by scientists. Hooray! But when a little old know-nothing like ME makes a similar proposal... OMIGAWD! "ImPOSSible" they cry! No can BE! But when SCIENCE makes it... well, whatdaya know... "we" have to at least CONSIDER it, don't we? At least, "we" have to respond with a modicum of "respect".
But my point expands beyond that... in that even scientists are/can be WRONG. They CAN be. And until they FULLY PROVE a theory... it is just that: A THEORY. But, hoo-wee... take ISSUE with a theory... and Lord A'Mighty. How is that NOT like taking issue with something someone believes on FAITH? Isn't it FAITH that compels one to believe in a THEORY... when it has yet to be FULLY proven?? (i.e., "I KNOW it will prove true; we just don't have ALL of the pieces, yet! But... someday we WILL!" - Faith... is the exact same thing).
now, what i am thinking is this: why are they proposing this idea? Who are "they"?
I don't know, dear one; I don't CARE. That wasn't my POINT.
Takes two to tango and she isn't above dishing a bit out herself and in as facetious a manner as anyone who's engaged her, then plays the victim as she has to "defend" herself againstthose meanie athiests and their ilk who call her on her biased assertions and thinly disguised attempts at righteous indignation. And makes a point of playing the part for all to see.
You are mistaken, dear Twitch (peace to you!). Unfortunately, dear Cofty started the "dance"; I merely followed his/her "lead." You are just unaware of all that was posted... and, obviously, dear Cofty wasn't going to step up and clear it up. Which I knew. Which is why I posted to him/her as I did.
Well as I see it, she started the thread specifically to address supposed "hypocritical" believers of science and reason
Your sight is a bit skewed, dear one. My point was that BOTH camps do the SAME thing... and for one to call the other on it is... hypocritical.
was dishonest about her real intentions, made assertions dressed up as fact
No my intentions were clearly stated and I dressed up nothing (which is why some folks got it. That you weren't among them is... on you?)
was called on it, denied and dismissed the points made
The points had absolutely NOTHING to do with MY point, so...
called out non-theists as "religious" to address her assertions, calls established fact as "fiction",
You MUST tell/show me what I called "fiction" that is actually fact, dear one...
evaded and played the "in no mood for you" card when she got owned and subsequently disappeared.
Uh-uh. While I WAS in no mood for Cofty's... ummmmm "games"... I didn't disappear, at all. I posted on other threads, tried to transact a business deal with a buyer for some merchandise I have, took some phone calls... and then took "care" of my husband and puppies (to the best of my ability). By that time I was totally wiped out and went to bed... where I was most of today. Just got the energy to come onboard about an hour ago, and so here I is...
Dear Tams, you have hit the nail on the head, as always. The greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!
I "hear" what you and dear SBC are saying, dear FMH (peace to you, as well!); however, are there not things spoken of in religion that science seems to prove DID occur? And isn't it these things that are the impetus for much of RELIGION'S "faith" in, say, what's in the Bible? Not that I agree with or advocate religion OR the Bible. That is not my POINT. My point is... when what is good for the goose is NOT good for the gander... isn't that a double-standard... and thus, hypocrisy?
It does.
I defer to dear tec's response to the verses you posted, dear SBC.
So how does one know that he can trust even the parts that talk about Christ and love?
One DOESN'T, dear one. Truly. Many BELIEVE they can... but look at what that has led to!
How do we know that's not just another product of the "lying pen" except perhaps the authors had good intentions and sought reform, based on love and unity.
We DON'T know, per se. But we CAN know... simply by ASKING... the One(s) about whom such things are written. ASK them if they "said" or "directed" such and so. Just ASK.
So how do we differentiate true from false by simply relying on which parts sound "loving"?
By asking the One(s) to whom they're supposedly attributed to. Let me give you an example (which I may have also posted elsewhere). According to the OT, there is a "law" that says "an eye for an eye." In several places. So, why didn't Christ teach this? Well, I asked him. And HE said that if it truly had been written... he would have said that! Just as he said to the Adversary, "It is WRITTEN, that... such and so!" Regarding the eye-for-an-eye issue, however, and the hating one's enemies (and devoting them to destruction), he did NOT say, "It is written, that... an eye for an eye, etc." Why? Because IT WAS NOT WRITTEN. Thus, he said the TRUTH, when he said, "You HEARD it SAID... an eye for an eye... and you must hate your enemies..."
WHO did they "hear" it from? WHO "said" it? NOT the Most Holy One of Israel... but the false prophets, the corrupt priests, the scribes, and the false "anointed" and others... whose vocation was to MISLEAD the people.
But... that is also not the subject of this discussion, so I'll stop there. I do want to thank OTWO, dear Bohm, and dear tec, though... for "hearing" me. Thank you.
Again, peace to you ALL!
A slave of Christ,
SA, who wonders how many of the commenters actually saw the documentary... and listened to the comments of the scientists involved, themselves, which prompted me to find the article and make the post. Gauging by the responses, I would wager none... or at least, very few...
