Well, he was at it again, only this time with more depth of factual and statistical data. Michael Medvid did a number on the theory of evolution today. I'm glad I check in with him!
Funny, you go from Schultz on Air America, which can only be classified as hate radio-70% of the time, to Hannity, who displays an elegance even in the most difficult radio encounters, to Medvid, who specializes in open debate on difficult topics, and what a time you have.
Anyway, this time around Medvid included a twist which was interesting. The twist being that the left cannot tolerate open debate about their views, while conservatives welcome it. How true. Conservatives want a label on textbooks that says that Evolution is an unproven theory, which it is, and to keep an open mind that there are other theories (i.e. Creationism and Intelligent Design-where an author is behind the wheel of the ongoing world).
Of course, this idea was met with by a furor by the left as something to do with religion. What is wrong with open debate? Why does the left want an unproven theory taught as a proven one?
It was very refreshing to see the weakest parts of evolution exposed. Topics such as,
- the occurrence of new specifics with a….(forgot the term) appears to debunk the whole theory
- Darwin did not take his own theory as seriously as today’s scientists (he’s probably turning in his grave over this)
- the fossil record leaving wide open gaps
- the fossil record being a big disappointment in proving evolution
The end result was that the truth wins out, yet once again. The more one knows about evolution, the more it cannot be taken seriously.
I love you CHAMP, you’re terribly fun to argue with :D
That is why I pray for every one of you…...heathen!
Open debate is good. I sure have learned some things by the intellectuals on this board. Hopefully I have been used to reach the inner soul of these folks, the place where the spirit and conscience connect, and truth cannot be denied, and conviction does its work.
Hopefully I have been used to reach the inner soul of these folks, the place where the spirit and conscience connect, and truth cannot be denied, and conviction does its work.
Of course, dear.
Christians and intellectuals getting chummy on this forum? Say it isn’t so!!
[quote author=“TheChampion”]Christians and intellectuals getting chummy on this forum? Say it isn’t so!!
Are you saying that Christians are not intellectual???
See, I thought you was liking me and I was liking you and we were getting chummy and everything was peachy king and we were connecting (then I was going to slip in a scripture or two) and you were going to take them to heart and I was going to persuade you and you were going to think it over and I was going to be your friend and then you and I were going to have lots of chats and then you were going to take my side and then I would slip in another scripture or two and then and then and then and you were going to .....CONVERT.
No? (hee hee)
No? (hee hee)
No. Why? You haven’t been able to provide any logical reasoning why we should. Why? I dunno. Do you suppose it’s because God works in mysterious ways?
Guest, you said: “No. Why? You haven’t been able to provide any logical reasoning why we should. Why? I dunno. Do you suppose it’s because God works in mysterious ways?”
Why but of course I have. I think you are “blocking” the reasoning because you will not listen to logically reasoned faith-based views.
And no, God does not work in mysterious ways, at least, that phrase is not found in the bible. So it must have come from the fog of man’s logic. We know a lot about God’s ways by perusing his word. Try perusing….and then get back to me.
[quote author=“TheChampion”]Conservatives want a label on textbooks that says that Evolution is an unproven theory, which it is, and to keep an open mind that there are other theories (i.e. Creationism and Intelligent Design-where an author is behind the wheel of the ongoing world).
Why single out evolution? Why not slap a label on textbooks that says that creationism is an unproven theory? We used to “know” the world is flat. We used to “know” that the sun revolves around the earth. Evolution is the best explanation we have that doesn’t require the direct attention and intervention of some magical super-being with arbitrary “omni*” superpowers to justify it. Maybe it is the wrong idea. It clearly doesn’t tell us the whole story. Einstein’s theory of relativity leaves gaping holes, but it is the best explanation for the evidence, so far. If we allow only theories that have no flaws or gaps, then even claims like “The sky is blue” or “Apples always fall straight down” would have to be discarded.
More importantly, the real test of any theory is “Does it work in practice?” You can make up all the theories you want about flying, but if you can’t make something that flies, then your theories are worthless. I’d like to know how creationism and ID are applied to the real world? I asked this in another topic but noone came up with an answer:
Speaking of gaps in theories, if the theory of evolution presupposed that a deity directly intervened, i.e. “then a miracle occurs”, then I would call that a pretty big gap. In fact, that would be a deal-killer.
I will post once on this inane thread, then wash my hands of it.
One who will side with right-wing radio nuts, whether the totally rabid or the relatively benign, can only do so because of the ease of agreeing with those who say what he or she wants to hear. To imply that “fact” or “knowledge” or “reason” enters into their discussion is to make a travesty of what those words mean.
When you start with faulty information, you cannot truly be said to “Reason.” Faith—the belief in the undemonstrable—smashes Reason at its foundation.
There are, of course, plenty of self-proclaimed Lefties who can be just as reactionary and unreasonable. But the modern, humanist concepts they mean to represent are sound—they are based on reality, which was not established, intact and unchanging, a handful of millennia ago.
When one attempts to argue Faith with Reason, one only sounds foolish to those of us who are not up to our evolved fore-brains with indoctrination and dogma.
Pray away for our immortal souls. You Omnipotent God has already made his decisions, hasn’t he?
AA, I totally disagree my leftist friend. I think you are off based. Faulty information on right wing radio? Can’t happen. You folks on the left monitor every word by Limbaugh and Hannity, then publish any thing that can even be misconstrued wrong. So, I think you have to take that one back, ok.
Also, you said about the left wing nuts on the radio: “But the modern, humanist concepts they mean to represent are sound—they are based on reality, which was not established, intact and unchanging, a handful of millennia ago.”
Modern - yes, sound - no. They contradict tradition. As for me, I’ll stick with the tried and true, not this “modern humanist” doctrine I’ve heard on left wing radio.
Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal. John 6:27
Champ’s statements only reinforce what has been said against the blindly faithful. It is the adherence to tradition, the belief that it is somehow superior or more valid that fact, that limits the thought process of the religious.
Faulty information on right wing radio? Can’t happen. You folks on the left monitor every word by Limbaugh and Hannity, then publish any thing that can even be misconstrued wrong.
This contradicts itself. They can’t be wrong, yet “we” publish anything that can be “misconstrued.” One “fact” is presented without support, then criticism with factual support is printed in response. Which side of such an argument is correct? According to Faith, the unprovable assertion has more validity, because it is believed without support. In the secular world we have a word for this: “Screwy”
Nah, I think it is more that the faithful have found the truth and are comfortably settled in it. You folks are still trying to find enough facts to prove your theories.