[FireFly]

Ah Lanny. You thought you'd get away from me, didn't you?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You defended the "institute" or do you already forget that? Here' let me refresh your memory.

"Don't institutes usually research? Perhaps there's an institute for research on the big bang? I'm sure if there isn't a whole institute on it, there's a lot of scientists who research it anyway..."

That's not really a defense. I pretty much admitted that I didn't know because I did in fact ask if they research...

[quote]I also did NOT bring this group up, CalgaryBornAgain did when he injected this link into the discussion.

http://www.icr.org/article/343/

All I did was provide some context for the article and its source. You can't apply critical thought without understanding the source of the information.[quote]

Or perhaps I understand exactly where it's coming from and choose to ignore it? The only time I pay attention to this stuff is in threads like this. My world just doesn't revolve around "spreading the truth" like you'd accuse more believers, so I don't pay attention to the idiots. You should try it. Try having a discussion about religion with someone who isn't a tool, you'll find it much harder to argue against.

You say my definition of creation too narrow? Using the proper terminology prevents confusion. Using the term "creation", a well known term in religious doctrine, to identify the moment when "our" universe began would cause confusion. It would also not be correct, as we do not know if this was indeed the moment of the "creation" of "our" universe, or but just another cycle in the natural flow of this entity. In fact, Creation Science, a term coined by the by creationists to make their "research" sound more respectable, was created (pardon the pun) with the intention of obfuscating science in general. Creation is just incorrect terminology, and using it is not different than using it makes no sense in the context of the discussion.

So what would you call it if it's helped along by God? In such a theory, obviously He's the catalyst to the beginning of the universe. Wouldn't that still be creation? Ignore "Creation Theory" for a moment. If it's not the earth in 6 days, but still created by God, what would you call it?

Deflecting what perchance? That I am spiritual, but not religious? No deflection of that at all. I have admitted it. Seems you're the one with the deflection issue.

Deflecting your hypocrisy. Didn't I wade into this thread to point out something stupid you said? Isn't it still stupid?

First you incorrectly identified me as the one who injected the ICR document into the fray. Then you've changed your position on the ICR in general, pulling a Hillary, saying you were for the ICR, then against, then trying to not associate yourself with it at all. Now, to your terminology and how you decide to frame issues, if you're going to try and engage in an intellectual debate on a given topic you must use the proper lexicon. You can make your point by using the correct language, so as not to inject confusion into the discourse.

I'll admit I'm an idiot and didn't read the thread. Thought I did already actually... Pulling a Hillary... lol. Nice sexist comment. Typical male.

As for the terminology, you make it up. What do you call it?

You can be what ever you want to be. It's really no concern of mine. I was just making a very salient point about religiosity and spirituality, and the divergent paths the two concepts have begin to travel in our culture. You may disagree that religiosity and spirituality are moving away from each other, but all you need to do to prove this ideal is examine Christianity in the United States and the many contradictions that exist in the "Christian" beliefs.

I'm not saying they aren't moving apart, I'm saying in some cases that isn't a good thing. There needs to be more critical thinking Christians in this world. Just like there needs to be more critical thinking agnostics. Open your eyes and pick a side but don't fence sit.

As to your comments about "openness" not being related to an individual's beliefs, where do you think the ability to be openness resides? It is based on an individual's beliefs and whether the concepts challenge the individual's ideal of truth. In the Platonic sense, knowledge is a direct intersection of truth and belief, which is what makes us open to greater understanding. Your failure to understand this doesn't make you dumb, as you suggest my position is, it just means you lack exposure or education in this regard.

Um, no. In this case I bet that science would eventually be able to tell you whether you'd be "open" as a person or not. I think it's partially genetic and while openness is something that can be nourished or starved as a child depending on beliefs, that doesn't explain everything. About two years ago this 10 year old kid was reported as saying after two weeks of being beaten and locked in a closet, "It's not my fault that he didn't love me. It just wasn't in him." A 10 year old kid. You know what that tells me? Either he's a psycho and he's already planning on death, or he's a kid that understands even without love that such a thing exists. That's open.

The fact that you think I've ever called you dumb, and the fact that you're now calling me dumb, actually just tells me you're rather immature for an old guy, Lanny. I called you a hypocrite. If you don't know the difference...