I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there :DQuote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Isn't there any non-used board left anymore ?
And your posts are also received here with much pleasure!
:) :p ;) :rolleyes: :D
|
I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there :DQuote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Isn't there any non-used board left anymore ?
And your posts are also received here with much pleasure!
:) :p ;) :rolleyes: :D
To put someone in their place means that you corrected or made them aware of something.
I think it's a little stronger than that. It's a reference to class. So a superior, such as the master of a house, would put a chimney sweep in his place through some sort of reminder that he is not allowed to speak unless spoken to, is ignorant, etc. To put someone in their place is to put them down.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Yeah that would be the origin of the saying but it is a saying/phrase that means basically setting somebody straight on something. It often is a put down. I was just letting Cred know his reply wasn't anything to do with the way achampo meant it.
Unfortunately, I responded to your issue with "FACTS" in another post, I am at work and it's a little difficult to keep up with each one so I apologize for not repeating myself here. YOU will get my point either way so no point in being redundant..
I happen to think the understanding of "putting someone in their place" should be a great example of what is each person's perspective of what that means. Something as simple as that statement could ring true for several people but in different ways. THAT Is what I meant when everything is a matter of opinion.
I KNOW WHAT A FACT IS... Absolutely was the word I chose to express my thoughts but I should have said ALMOST EVERYTHING is open to perspective and opinion. OTHER THAN A FACT, which is PROVEN.. BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS PROVEN SO NOT EVERYTHING IS A FACT AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. I feel like I have to repeat myself with you because you only hear what you want to hear. CAN you absorb information, take it in and gain a greater awareness or be a little introspective? OR are you not capable of receiving information other than a fact?
I was just telling cred that when he replied with
I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there
To
I am so terribly sorry, thank you for putting me in my place credo
It was a phrase we use to say thank you for correcting me, straightening that out or pointing that out to me (since achampo made the statement it would not have been made as an insult)
When you have to repeat to cred more than two or three times ---you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredsoul
shatteredsoul, please understand several of the non christian posters here have no other purpose but to post on various question and answer web sites with anti christian material, they do not want a real discussion but merely to post their rants. Many are hear because they have been banned from other sites and wondered over here. Some even have web sites that boast of the facts that they try and see how far they can go with their attacks before they are banned.
So don't even assume you are going to win since no "facts" will ever be accepted by them, Jesus himself could come and see them and they will if not already have rejected him.
Gosh, Father Chuck I feel very foolish. I had no idea. It's hard to tell sometimes those posting truly seeking answers, vice those just trying to stir the pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Can be disheartening, but it will never weaken our faith.
Sad that people would do that. Very very sad for them.
Cred only posts because he seems to think his fact outweigh our belief and he has always made it clear that he will never believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Hi Nohelp,
I don't even know what to think. Sad, very sad the whole darn thing. But our faith will never be shook, no matter what.
It makes your heart so heavy - but again, no matter what is said or done, our faith will always remain.
But often the very best workers for the Lord, the strongest Christians are the ones that used to be the worst heathens, So when those that seem to hate the Lord the strongest can become the hardest workers for him latter. Paul is the best example of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
That's so very true Fr. Chuck, so very very true. So there is still great wonderful hope.
Almost like a child being undiciplined for attention, and grows to one of the most wonderful adutls.
Thanks Fr. Chuck - heart isn't so heavy now. :)
For others who may be willing to listen, Bible history has been confirmed by internal evidence relating to various kings outside Israel who are also mentioned in profane history. Cities mentioned in the Bible have been found exactly where they were supposed to have been. The Bible informs us that man is made of clay, that the Earth was once one large continent before it broke apart; something that man has only fairlly recently "discovered". There are other proofs to be found by careful study, but the one I like best are the many prophecies written years prior to the events that they foretell, and the detailed accuracy of those prophecies.
That's cool. I think almost everyone agrees that there are many facts in the Bible that are historically accurate, and, on the other hand, hardly anyone insists that every last line of the Bible is literally true, but true more in terms of universal truths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
But the kind of question we've been discussing is different. Namely, is there any objective evidence -- outside of the Bible -- for the idea that the 10 million or so species that now live on Earth, as well as the billion or so different species that have ever lived, were individually created by God? What is the data or evidence supporting Creationism and Intelligent Design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
You said in this post - the only 'evidence' for ID Creationism (be honest, they're the same thing) is one single book. No matter how many millions or billions believe it to be a 'divine truth' it does not and cannot provide any evidence for the claims of divine creation.
Those who believe in ID choose to beleve what they feel, I 'believe' what I can see and touch. Because of the rabid, I hesitate to use that 'B' word because it's often turned against those who accept the empirical evidence to designate 'faith' in the science. A matter of semantics only and a disengenious game. Before I came to the conclusion that the idea of God was irrational, the belief in the supernatural was there. But even then it did not conflict with accepting scientific explanations. If God was the 'law of the universe' by being its creator, then why couldn't he have merely set things in motion? What if he took 'free will' to its extreme and once the universe was sparked, let the physical laws take over?
This is all those of us who fight against anti-evolutionists want anyone to consider. That God's domain is emotional and spiritual and science's is to discover the physical way things work. The emotional versus the empirical and neither has to denegrate the other. Niether has to intrude on the domain of the other. It simply does not work to try and do so.
That would mean that theists have to accept that dead is dead, that there is no carrot dangling from the Christian (or based on this new view the old Judaic) stick, that the reward is life itself continuing in our children and grandchildren, not in some claimed "hereafter".Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
They will never accept that...
:rolleyes:
·
HMM, just to set it straight for those that are reading this I did NOT take ANY offense to credo's response. I assumed he got my funny sarcasm(hint was the cute little smiley I sooo adore) and responded with his own funny sarcasm.
And to just throw my 2 or maybe 10 cents in I have this to add...
I think that Credo was simply asking a question in regards to believers giving objective proof outside of the bible for the existence of God. He was not saying that believers are wrong or that they are horrible people for believeing just wanted to know if there was any proof or objective evidence for His existence. If you have proof, objective evidence then by all means post it and discuss it. If you do not, then say it and be done with it. (I DO believe in God and Jesus, but I am the first to admit I do not have ANY proof. But I still believe.) It states in the bible that un-believers will question your faith. I think it is our duty to provide the answers we can provide in a christian or at least civilized manner. NOT BE RUDE AND DEMEANING. I am guilty of making ugly remarks on this very thread. But I apologized and called a truce. I even stayed away for awhile and relented from discussion. But I truly think everyone is taking this TOTALLY out of context. THERE Isn't A BOARD FOR EVOLUTION,ID,CREATIONISM OR ANYTHING! So he brought it here.
Thank you to those that have remained calm and light-hearted throughout.
And again, I REALLY LOVE THIS SITE!! I FEEL SO INVIGORATED AFTER A FEW MIN ON HERE!! :p :D :p
Sorry!:o You got to the whole explanantion of this thread before I did! THANK YOU!! And I didn't mean to be a repeater!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by asking
Again, the evidence from which we both deduce our conclusions is objective. Our deductions and yours are subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Good, you admitted it's a theory. So you don't know for sure. You simply believe. You have a sort of faith that something which you haven't seen with your own eyes, is actually true.Quote:
The difference being that for evolution there are mountains of objective supportive evidence that backs up the findings and general theory, while for religion there is no objective supported evidence at all!!
So, you are no longer Credendovidis. But Credendofide.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You do? Please enlighten me. All I've seen so far from Creden, and I like the way you've shortened that ;) is emphatic denials that we have objective evidence which leads to our conclusion for the existence of God. And since I'm Catholic also, I'd welcome a fellow Catholic's explanation on how Creden even comes near to having a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuscany
At least they looked at the evidence and decided that the conclusion for evolution was premature. But you refuse to admit that we have any evidence for the existence of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You have to? Why? Don't we have free wills and freedom of thought? Why must we arrive at your conclusions?Quote:
You have to
Were you there when the world was created? If not then you are simply believing what others tell you. You are believing something which you don't see and can't be proved therefore you are exhibiting faith.Quote:
... accept the enormous difference in validity that already exists between the loads of basic SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (for origin and age of universe to origin and age of solar system to origin and age of earth to origin and process of evolution etc. etc) , and the BELIEF that is at the basis of religion and religious views.
Enough for you. Just as there is enough evidence for us to believe in God.Quote:
I do not say that there is complete covering scientific evidence for all items in the first group, but there is enough
Near fact? Close only counts in horse shoes. A near fact is not a fact. And the word "near" is a relative term. What is near to you might be quite far for someone else.Quote:
and inter-supporting evidence for it to elevate these theories clearly above the "belief" level : they are no longer only thesis : part of it already is accepted as scientific theory (a near-fact). What is left is to tie up all pieces together - if ever that will be possible due the loss of supporting evidence over the eons of time.
All you have to do is look at your own hand. Can anything which does not possess intelligence produce anything that intricate and amazing? We are wonderfully made and only one Being could have created us. By looking at the objective evidence which is all around us, we come to the subjective conclusion that God exists.Quote:
As to religion : we have now up to 5000 years of human written history, during which there never ever has been any supporting evidence for religious claims. None what-so-ever !
Wonderful!! Thanks for the admission. Your claims aren't factual. Therefore they are beliefs which you derived because you have faith in the scientists who drew the conclusions and taught them to you.Quote:
So although neither side can call all it's claims "factual"
Yes. But the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelmingly on our side. You just refuse to acknowledge it.Quote:
, the ever increasing difference in objective support between the two sides is of enormous proportions.
Nah. You're wrong. Our side has the bulk of the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge that matter and you believe that by refusing to believe you have provided some sort of proof. But your subjective thought process is not proof of anything. It is simply your thought process.Quote:
There are indeed still many mysteries. Many may be solved, some may never be solved. That I agree with you.
Where and why I disagree with your position is related to the fact that one side has growing objective supporting evidence, while the other side has no objective supporting evidence at all. The two side are not on an equal level. One side has (some) evidence. The other side has nothing but belief.
Sincerely,
De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:59 AM. |