Hey creationists: 2 newly-discovered species 500 million years old

This is a message to all. Reading back over my posts, I often use bold text. This is not my written way of shouting (I have been made aware some people use bold this way.... not what I intended).

I have been using bold as a way of inserting my comments after someone else's previous quote in a way it could be seen. I might use color to distinguish my comments from the body of the note, but I haven't been able to figure out use of colored text... and some might attach some not meant meaning to the use of color as well.

I notice that some of you are able to bring quotes of pieces of a conversation into a reply, boxed off, visible and identified as a quote........then leaving your own reply to that quote. If I knew how to do this, I would and would refrain from the use of bold.

Is there any tutorial on the use of forum tools I can look at to improve my communications?

 

Hi Lamson –

if you click on the quote button at the bottom of the specific post you want to reply to, the content of the post is repeated, wrapped in quote wrappers.

My quote of yours, for example, on my screen reads:
[QUOTH=Lamson;290293]Is there any tutorial on the use of forum tools I can look at to improve my communications?[/QUOTH]
I've changed 'quote' to 'quoth' so it fools the program!

As you can see, the quote is ascribed to you.

... but use square brackets [ ], not parentheses ( ) !

There. Clear as mud!

 

trying my test here

ok Thomas, think I might have it. I really appreciate the help

 

The "BB code" link in the Posting Rules box near the bottom left of the page has more examples:
Interfaith forums - BB Code List

 

While writing you can mark the text you want to cite and press the Quote button (a dialogue box). The Quote tag will be inserted at the beginning and end of your marked text.

 

I was under the impression that junk DNA was placed there for, intended, future use. That things are evolving according a great plan. That switches will turn on and off as the plan progress. Do you see it as more random than that?

 

Christian....Jesus as teacher...

G!d...You are correct, I am a nontheistic Christian panentheist unitic...

It is the G!d I grew up with... the lack of a knowledge of the science they didn't know...and now a lack of the knowledge of the science we don't know...

Just because I don't believe in the G!d written about in the bible doesn't mean that I don't think the teachings and words of Jesus aren't valuable in my life.

 

thanks Dan. that is very helpful

 

Thanks Cup. this is getting better and better.

 

Cup,
Please don't think I presume to have many answers. I made the comment about the junk DNA because that is what seems to make sense to me. It may well turn out that junk DNA is just that... junk.... ashes from past mutations. But again, maybe not.

The idea of a plan is speculation on the unprovable. If future science proves that unused DNA are switches that turn on and off periodically, that will still not prove if there was intent behind it. I think theological debate will always have fertile ground no matter how far science goes.

My personal "what makes most sense based on what I see" is that there was/is a prime intelligence that thought it all up and built it (for want of a better word since the word create has been modified to mean something else).

I suppose it is possible this intelligence built a "machine of life" with lots of bells and whistles for change. That this machine was wound up so to speak and released to "evolve" as randomly as chance would take it.

It is also possible that such intelligence might indeed have a plan according to which it might "hit the buttons" of its creation time to time to keep it on track.

Speculation on the existence of a creator does not require speculation on the motives of same.

For me, personally, I am compelled to believe in the existence of a prime intelligence. I am not sure I am equally compelled to have specific beliefs about its motives for creation.

Hope that helps. It does for me. Talking it out helps to clarify.

 

GK, yes I belong to the Theosophical Society.

You said,

"They have distorted the original philosophical and religious views completely as part of their agenda to discredit evolution etc."

-> I agree. The term intelligent design has been hijacked by these religious conservatives who are trying to discredit the idea of evolution, just as you have said. They want us to think there are only two kinds of people in this world, people who believe in evolution an people who don't. They are wrong, there is a third group, people who believe in intelligent design.

 

I just wanted your opinion, and that's what I got. If you claimed to know this or that, like many who pass by here, I wouldn't have asked to begin with.

I just haven't talked to anyone with this particular view of evolution and intelligent design. It was interesting.

 

But, let's be honest, you do reject more of what He teaches than you accept.

This 'definition' does make me giggle. Care to explain it? Like how you believe in Christ, but don't believe in what He teaches, and yet He is your teacher ... ?

Again. "I don't believe in the Bible, unless it suits me to do so."

Can't you see that everything you says says: "Anything that tells me I'm a god (regardless of what it actually says), that'll do for me ... the rest ... nah ... "

 

Gad it just pisses you off that I am happy eh?

Have no fear brother...there a millions of Christians just like I...and millions that are anti science, hell fire brimstone beatin the bible into their kids literalists... two sides of a coin.

 

Must it be that? I have also a hard time understanding how you fit this and that together. I'm not the slightest upset, of course, but I don't understand it. Sometimes all there is is confusion, there don't have to be hard feelings.

 

Lol... You are correct...

 

No, this is the stock response when he hasn't got an answer – make out everyone else has got a problem.

It doesn't fit together, it's just that I call him on it.

Wil's religion is 'all about me'. His unique 'brand' of Christianity is just something to set him apart from the others. It's a modern version of the Luke 18 scenario.

 

Now now, you two have a long long history. You two are the personifications of Tradition and Rebellion. You both read in what you expect to hear from the other, we all make that mistake. This informal form of writing doesn't convey all the nuances needed to understand each other all the time.

One might say that he is a reaction to your way of thinking, just as one might say that you are a reaction to his?
I think it's enough to say that you and I don't understand, any more would stepping out of bounds and wouldn't make matters any better anyway. Don't you think?

 

True.

That's an interesting pov.

Which is why I'm ready to explain and reason the orthodox position. I would like to see the heterodox do likewise.

Quite right. But the argument boils down to, is there an authentic orthodox doctrine, or is Christianity just something we make up to suit ourselves?

Or maybe just suspend the dialogue altogether. The point is I do understand where Wil's coming from. Been there. done that.

 

Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup!