OUG, trivia first… I was complimenting the other pun - tree of… (lief, an archaic word pronounced like leaf, used as beloved or dear).

Amongst others, Saltpetre and Poirot have both offered profound thoughts about spirituality worthy of your consideration.

Explaining it - Pericles is amongst the Serafim of writers of clarity on OLO, and I assure you I have been making an effort, but I will try harder to explain it more clearly…

Almost everything you say about evolution is wrong.

The only places I have seen science misrepresented so are on creationist-inspired websites. They are lying.

There is no proof of fish evolving into apes nor of apes becoming man, because it didn't happen. This is what science says.

Scientists are clear in stating what they know and what they think; and why they think so based on what they know.

Understanding clearly, exactly what scientists are stating can often be very difficult as are the complexities of what they are describing (I suspect mathematicians are actually a separate species).

If you want to bore yourself to tears. Ask any scientist about what they don't know.

Accuse their parents if children aren't being told about god or good.

Consider choosing to think a little differently: "Not knowing" can be valuable! Maybe – for other people – asking questions and seeking knowledge is, for them, the way to learn what to think about god?

Trav, talking about science to OUG got me to remembering how inherent in scientific enquiry is the use of critical thinking.

Maybe this is why some people make the necessary distinction when they talk about 'scientific knowledge' as compared to other forms - for example, 'religious knowledge', what you believe to be true. Two people can be discussing the same topic and talking about what they both *know* even though there is a qualitative difference in the knowledge they have and use.

Scientific knowledge is external (not inherent) and verifiable and changeable. I think it's these three characteristics which also apply as a test of critical thinking.

Your religious knowledge - what you know you believe - can never be fully communicated. An eternity of words will never result in me comprehending exactly what you believe and I have no way of verifying it anyway.

Paradoxically, religious knowledge is only capable of change. The amusing thing is that when a person changes their belief or religious knowledge, unless they let it 'leak out of their headspace', the rest of the universe will never notice.

I'm encouraging of your quest and hope you'll consider this contribution… It seems to me the flaw in your dialogue with Pericles and AJ Philips is you've not realised that to apply *critical thinking* to Christianity, The Bible represents an hypothesis not the proof.

wn..i read that as win

[in much the same manner
as i read lief to mean love..[not leaf]

we talk here much about BE-lief*
because others..cant find reason..to try to follow the logic

i have bred pigeons chicken goats fish
and many thousands of beasts..personally

guided by serious books on genetics..
even had long in depth converations with others
..who love testing the THEORY of evolution'..as well as theorists like richard [dickk] dorkins...

[who deleted the whole flatfish topic
after he lost it to me]

i have raised it here as a topic a few times
i have heard all the theories..and tested many

evolution of species
is about SPECIES..evolving..[WITHIN their genus]

there is not one....*no report..*ever
of any mutating..*out of their genus

if you had facts to say..
YOU WOULD SAY THEM

but its clear you dont*

anyhow i hold true to trying to be-lief*
i have questioned much called...'be/lief'..in the holy texts

but jesus introduced us to the LIVING loving good...[god]
he didnt need to write it down..

cause he taught us
to KNOW OUR FATHER PERSONALLY...
that we love god..by trying to be-lief to neighbour

in its essence..its a be-lief..

that is..*done..*by egsample
we will be known..BY OUR WORKS*

thanks for the reminder
but just as science ignores be-lief..
so too...*worse those who actually are called..to be* lief

its nice when someone 'gets you'
even nicer when we really try to *get others
to standup for their lief being...

[it was of course
a dislectic poke at..*life]
but at least...you found the love
even upon a dead leaf..from a dead tree of life

it failed its own tests
but the silence is overwelming...
speaking volumes..cause its *NOT..*on the news

just quietly forgotten*
yet another faulsity fruit
from a faulty theory..*of evolution

My congratulations WmTrevor. No disrespect to anyone else on OLO, but you are the calmest and sanest person I have come across on this forum, and quite possibly in the whole of my 66 years on this planet. Your thoughtfulness, clarity and compassion are a great credit. I wish I could develop some myself, but I've left it a bit late to make any radical changes. Still, I will try. You have shown the way.

My regards,

P.

Saltpetre, Wm Trevor, Trav et al.

This seems to be one of those moments in a thread when the mood is conducive to honest reflection and perhaps insight. Wm Trevor's last thoughtful comments are interesting:

<< It seems to me the flaw in your dialogue with Pericles and AJ Philips is you've not realised that to apply *critical thinking* to Christianity, The Bible represents an hypothesis not the proof. >>

I would suggest that the critical thinking of science is not the only type of critical thinking. Consider for instance the way literary specialists do a critique of a piece of serious fiction. The process involves many elements. Just a few might be: empathising with characters and making value-judgements about their behaviour; being alert to shades of meaning in words; being aware of one's own emotional, aesthetic and intellectual responses to the text; rating the originality of the story.

Any two critics, no matter how highly trained, may well form different assessments of the same literary work. This sort of critical thinking is a major component of any worthwhile biblical scholarship. In such a context there is no way one could equate the Bible to a scientific hypothesis, nor the study of it to scientific enquiry.

Although good biblical scholarship can aid real spiritual growth, I would agree with Wm Trevor that the Bible cannot be considered "proof" of most things the literalists claim.

wn quote...""Almost everything you say about evolution is wrong.""

im presuming thats aimed at me
so lets just give at least one egsample

saying 'everything'..is a bit sloppy
so trust you will present some 'evidence'

""The only places I have seen science misrepresented so
are on creationist-inspired websites...They are lying.""

again i must think that again refers to me
if you say im lying..then give proof,...

[namecalling or snide remarks
dont replace the NEED for proof]

you also said this...""you've not realised that
to apply *critical thinking* to Christianity,""

it is put funny..[unclearly]

pwersonally i have egsamined the bible/koran/and other religeous texts to scruitany..as well as critical thinking

but not alone the religeous texts
also to much scxience work..[they ALL require critical thinking]
but specificly science...and more specificly the THEORY of evolution..!

you say..""The Bible represents an hypothesis not the proof.""

you are so wrong...at worst its a collection of 66 books written SPECIFICLY by MNY authers..

all reporting the special events/reachings/lessons..
of their life journeys...we hear personal witness of the christ
that are regarded as true...[so true that even today many leaders and courts SWEAR oaths on them*

but as repeatedly said
correct the facts where you think me wrong*

its time to seriosly put up some FACT*
show me where IN YOUR OPINION..i have missled..or decieved ANYONE

anyhow you are clever with words
now reveal some facts

put up facts*

[not just long links..that are found by gogle search
if the link is important...state which bit]

its only too easy to ignore or say words
put up facts