George

>>> >> How can you stand by and watch a fellow Christian make such an idiot of himself, leaves me speechless.<<

Could you please suggest, what you think I should do beside having tried to explain to him that science, notably evolution, are compatible with a Christian outlook? It is hard, since there are others, like Dawkins, who keep on persuading him of the opposite. <<<

Well here's a twist; blame Dawkins for Dan not comprehending science. Do herrings arrive any redder than this?

People like Dan S de M, have somehow managed to learn to read and write and yet not understand even the most basic science. And what they do perceive as science they are then persuaded as incompatible with religion because of people like Dawkins? I doubt that reading Dawkins is even remotely possible for Dan at this point in time.

Nor do I see Dawkins persuading fundamental Christians of anything. Any more than Dawkins going door to door shoving his books into unwilling hands.

If anyone is likely to reach fundamentalist Christians, it is people like yourself who are capable of seeing the natural world as a part of your god's creation. Instead you blame atheists for Christian fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis.

You are not speaking to the likes of Oliver here, this is a Christian fundamentalist, you need to reach him at his level. I know it is not as much intellectually challenging as sparring with such as Oliver, but it would be a positive contribution if you would descend from your tower and talk to other Christians such as Dan.

Dear George,

You wrote: "You certainly know that no thinking Christian or Jew will take Genesis verbatim."

I think many thinking Christians and Jews take Genesis verbatim. People's minds are compartmented. They are capable of using reason in one area and not in another. Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies and was duped by made-up photographs. In other areas he was an acute observer not too different from his literary creation, Sherlock Holmes. I read Augustine's 'Confessions' and was impressed with his ruminations on time and space. Yet he had a neurotic guilt about stealing pears in an orchard as a teenager. One would think that any thinking person could have enough insight to see that such guilt was unreasonable.

I think Dan is profoundly wrong. Yet he is probably a thinking person in many areas. He is not a twit as he has been called.

Some people who I regard as intelligent subscribe to Marxism. In spite of its record and in spite of Marx's words they explain both the record and the words away. Yet they can be thinking people in other areas. They think I am the one who is prejudiced and blind, and I think the same thing of them.

There is no absurdity that a thinking person cannot rationalise.

>>> There is no absurdity that a thinking person cannot rationalise. <<<

Davidf

Thank you for your far more eloquent and patient response to George. I must confess I have little patience for the deliberate mental sleight of hand that appears to be the modus operandi of some (thankfully not all) religious people.

sererin'slink..provided in response to dans request for evidence/spends its whole time explaining mutations of chromosones

then finishes..with this..<<It's tempting/to look for mutations in individual genes..that account for/our lack of hair and general planetary domination,..and that was the focus of science until recently.>>and that was the whole import of the preceeding write-up

<<But serious/computer-grunt..applied to the entire human/genome..is telling us..that it's mutations..in the DNA regulatory switches that control our genes,..rather than the genes themselves,*..>>lol

<<..that are the real/key to creating different species.>>.thus clearly the computer GRUNTS..didnt find that they hoped/they would find...ie that which would/confirm..chromosanal mutation...lol

its so funny this despirite scramble..that claims one thing*..
then confirms*..at the end...it still dont know..

thus gives a new theory...lol

its so typical/..of how you lot
have been blindsided,..,by the spin..
you fail to see..there/simply speaking..is no evidence
to validate ya theory...let alone proof..of change of genus
via evolution of species..[within their genus]

i have found much...as no doudt dan has found too/
at every link..you lot offer as "evidence"...

its a theory
NOT A SCIENCE...

its sold to you as children..
so you will have CHILDISH/FAITH..in evolution being fact..

when at best ..its only THEORY..!
..that has ABSOLUTLY..not one faulsifyable/
that if rebutted invalidates.. the theory

YOU CLAIM SCIENCE...make first one...of a new genus
make one cold-blood..evolve..into a warmblood
see evolution/out of genus..is a grand deciet

yes many facts..but no PROOF

what is science/that cant prove itself?
that CANT replicate/its/premus...its a fraud

[not you/nor george..
can prove,...the THEORY/..of evolution]

its a theory...live with it

your links grow weary..
they/..like you promise...sooo much
then give so little/but theory and spin

fodder for the faithfull..[in science]
food for the faithless/athiest

spun ..by the high-priest-hoods..of science/spin

just the same/as the high-priest/hoods
..decieving the good/away from god/..
via lie/fear...and creed

shame/shame/shame
SAME/same/same
fame/flame..yet..i pity/your certainty

sham/sham/sham
scam/scam/scam

davidf: <Some people who I regard as intelligent subscribe to Marxism. In spite of its record and in spite of Marx's words they explain both the record and the words away. Yet they can be thinking people in other areas. They think I am the one who is prejudiced and blind, and I think the same thing of them.

There is no absurdity that a thinking person cannot rationalise.>

Dear davidf,
if I am one of those this is intended for then the comment is unfair. I have consistently stated that I do not subscribe to "Marxism", or any "ism", and have acknowledged some of its weaknesses and its appalling history in practice. I certainly haven't explained the record away; I have offered some thoughts in mitigation of it.
I could very well have written this myself: "There is no absurdity that a thinking person cannot rationalise", it's virtually my mantra and we must all be on our guard against such rationalising. As for Marx's words, they speak for themselves, millions of them, in great depth and cannot be dismissed glibly. As I've also said, we're all prejudiced; but I strive to keep my mind open, whereas yours is closed, at least so far as Marx is concerned.
I've preferred to leave the subject alone of late and not respond, but I will start a thread on some deeper aspect of Marx's thought some time this year. I hope you'll join in.

Dear George,
thanks for reading the paper. I was besotted with Jung in my youth, but am very sceptical now. Shall reply at greater length asap.

Dear Squeers,

Although I have had discussions on that subject with you, you are not the person I was thinking of. The person I was thinking of was Max Watts who is a believing Marxist. I recently saw him in Sydney. He sent an email to another party and referred to me in the following manner:

FYI FROM MAX
DAVID FISHER, WHO SENT THIS TO ME, IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM.
FANATICALLY "ANTI-MARX" (!) (AND ANTI-LENIN, ETC) HE IS OTHERWISE A V NICE GUY
AND ELSEWHERE RATIONAL.

I don't believe my mind is closed, and yours is open on that subject. I think I have good reasons for my opinion.

Nevertheless, it was not you I referred to.