Its NOT a bail out.

Not ALL of lifes issues can be answered logically.

If they could, we'd all be worshipping Star Treks' Mr. Spock.

And I think its a bit disingenuous to claim I am afraid of logic.

Why the need to always "charachterize" me, or paint me a certain way???/

Again, when confronted with logic, you bail out.

You call a logical argument "IRRELEVANT", because there's no rational way to explain your position, other than blind faith.

I almost hate to interject here but the Bible was written by men. I am sure these same men had their own agendas, because they are human.  In fact these same monks were good enough to bring the world, beer!! AMEN to that!

[beer]

AND YES, I DO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO CHARACTERIZE, (OR CHARACHTERIZE", AS YOU SAY).
IT REQUIRES THE USE OF ADJECTIVES.

I, in no way, addressed your character.
We're discussing an issue.
A scientific issue.
Youmake a claim that is neither logical or scientific.
I call you on it.
Period.
Don't be thin skinned.

Gee, when have i ever claimed I'm NOT a person of VERY strong faith?????

[rolleyes]

But it is NOT blind faith.

I have seen Biblical prayer call down God's power to heal cervical cancer, and cystic fibrosis, BOTH documented by non-beleiving physicians.

The stars declare the glory of God. We've already discussed that.

His Holy Bible, in its duration, its wordwide appeal, and in its unshakeable accuracy and applicability to every day life ALL speak of the existence of God.

I have seen people COMPLETELY change their lifestyles after God's grace grasped them, just as Scripture says it would.

NO - it is NOT blind faith.

THIS NEXT PART IS VERY IMPORTANT -

If a person does NOT wish to see God, they  never will. its that simple. I have no basis for beleiving you don't wish to see God, but I can assure you of the truth of that statement.

No, we're speaking a DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

Do you know what it means to "charachterize" someone??

Do you understand the difference between "charachter" and what it is to "charachterize" someone???

I think we should drop it. There's a DEFINITE comprehension problem going on here.

I understand your frustration.
You should try to calm down, though.[:)]

Whatever, major.


I realize you won't quit or be happy until it can LOOK LIKE you won the argument.

SO, you "win."

[rolleyes]

I accept your surrender. [:)]

I have stayed out of this thread up until now.  I'm not going to refute or comment on any other replies, I'm just going to make a statement....

1. We are not going to settle the creationist/ Darwinism arguement, there will be dispute among the stupid and among the brilliant for quite some time.

2.  There is substantial academic and scientific support for both sides of this debate, despite what some here browbeat.

3.  Evolutionary theory and creationism both come in different flavors.  Just because someone disputes one side of the arguement does not imply that they are card carrying members of the other and subject to all the preconcieved notions you have.
Just a sample division:

I.  Creationists
a. Young Earth believers
b. Old Earth believers, "intelligent design"

II.  Evolutionists
a. Rational science followers
b. Darwin Fundamentalists

III. Evolution Critics that do not support creationism but question some tenants to the theory of Evolution and its constraints  

IV.  Creationism critics that do not support evolution but have questions about biblical interpretation
  There are thousands of other variants...

   As a scientist, it is my job to rigorously question theory.  If a chink in a theory surfaces, it will be grilled and modified until it fits observation or a better model is hypothesized.  Yes, evolution has many chinks, like all theories.  Defending a theory to the point that you will not listen to criticism is not only counter to the scientific process, it is also academically dishonest.  

It seems to me that some would argue their sides on these issues until the end of the earth.
A couple of points;
1. If the 'Creationists' or Christians are wrong and there is no Judgement Day and we just cease to exist....oh well. This is a no harm no foul situation.

2. But if the 'evolutionists' are wrong when judgement day comes and they have turned their backs on God.... oops, everlasting damnation in Hell! This possibility has a lot of potential as seen on this and other threads.

OK, lets look at the other side of the coin.

3. If the Christians are right and Judgement Day happens. We have eternal life in Heaven.

4. If the non-believers are right and nothing happens, once again no harm no foul.

Honestly decide what you would want for you and your family. Are you ready to bet it all on a THEORY? What is the harm to at least allow the possibility of what Eric and Garandman are saying? Look at numbers 1 and 3 again and decide 'what is the worst that can happen'?

Do you have the ability to realize that there is a God and that you are subject to God? Can you let go of your human frailties and acknowledge that humans are not at the top of the existence ladder?

If you can say yes to the above questions, email me for more information. The very fact that it is a leap of faith is the 'price of admission' so to speak.

It would be my wish that all would come to God from a sense of love and reverance. But in this arena I think it is OK for a little bit of fire and brimstone to get them 'in the door'. Hopefully they will learn to love revere God afterwards.

Thank you, Blaise. [;)]

This is analogous to a situation in which someone is offering a free chance to win a fortune on a lucky coin flip.  If it were really structured that way, then taking the free chance would make perfect sense.

But it might be more accurate to model things differently.  Instead of a straight God/Not, Believe/Not matrix, perhaps we should consider that a "winning bet" might require a series of lucky coin flips:

1) There is a God.
2) There is an afterlife.
3) God wants us to do and believe certain things to be rewarded in that afterlife.
4) We have an accurate way to tell which of mankind's many competing religions will give us accurate information on #3.
5) God will still give us "the good stuff" even though we've only come to faith out of self interest and playing the odds.

We should also consider that belief is not a cost-free option.  What if there is no afterlife and believing will make our lives miserable?  In that case, choosing to believe wastes the only opportunity (this life) that we have.

You're close but not close enough.  Jean Calvin, who helped develop the fundamental concepts within modern Christianity, developed the notion of predestination.  Christian philosophy tells us that you only gain salvation through [i]unmerited grace[/i].  If you are going to be "saved", it is your destiny from birth.  The only thing you can do to not gain salvation after death is to Sin (with a capital S) in life.  Religious furvor, practices, and beliefs have little or nothing to do with it.  Simply not believing won't send you to hell.  However, there are a few sects of Christianity that feel belief is a necessary part of their mythology.  They reject the unmerited grace concept and replace it with a need to be dominated by a projected anthopomorphism.

1911vsGlock!
[argue]