I thought ed was referring to himself, from the very beginning of the song to the very end...it's all ed..no? being stripped and stabbed...by the industry, but he still stands..and he still gives his love, just gives it away...every time he sings!!
"Dream the dream others then...you will be no one's RIVAL!"
"Doo do do do doo do doo, Doo do do do doo do doo..."
well i guess hes given up on me then cause i dont hear a peep from him.
and if there is no calling, as you both put it, to be heard?
Not at all, Cate, truly maybe you don't hear it because you are doing alright on your own and if He is to be present (as well as welcomed by you) in your life, you are not in need at this time.
I have heard Him loudest and best when I am prostrate, crying in front of my cross in my bedroom. That is when I listen.
I don't think I am chosen or picked or special, hell no, but that is the cool thing if I can hear Him so can all who listen.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I thought ed was referring to himself, from the very beginning of the song to the very end...it's all ed..no? being stripped and stabbed...by the industry, but he still stands..and he still gives his love, just gives it away...every time he sings!!
Hi. Lisa.
Welcome to the thread.
I guess GTF could be understood that way but I seriously hope thats not the case. If it is, then I think Ed would be setting hmself as up as some kind of Messiah figure, making his statement 'there are no fucking messiahs in rock' sound a bit hypocritical. If Ed thinks he's the one who was stripped, stabbed, then 'rose up' and 'floated back down' to share the key to locks on everyones chains, and to give away his love, he is one seriously deluded rock star. I think he's talking about someone else, and only one person seems to fit the bill. Peace.
Not at all, Cate, truly maybe you don't hear it because you are doing alright on your own and if He is to be present (as well as welcomed by you) in your life, you are not in need at this time.
I have heard Him loudest and best when I am prostrate, crying in front of my cross in my bedroom. That is when I listen.
I don't think I am chosen or picked or special, hell no, but that is the cool thing if I can hear Him so can all who listen.
Hi writersu
Good to have you around.
'we never listen, voice inside, so drowned out, drowned you are, you are you are a furry thing, and everything is you, you me, me you, its all related.'
I originally said God 'gently' pursues us, but i edited it out because sometimes, If we keep resisting, he has to break us first, then put us back together.
'You can run from love, but if its really love it will find you, and catch you by the ear'
Another song that I think is relevant to this thread is insignificance. I think those who are familiar with the apocalyptic literature from the Bible will agree that this song sounds very much like a plea to God for mercy in the coming apocalypse. I love the image of someone in a bar selecting a 'protest' song on the dukebox and dancing 'with irreverance' as the great disaster strikes. Its so reminiscent of what Jesus said 'people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man'. the first chorus is interesting in saying 'the full moon is dead skin' and reminds me of wht revelation says will happen at the apocalypse: I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. 'The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red'. the song seems to call out to God for forgiveness, rather like Jesus did on the cross (forgive them father they know not what they do) saying 'please fogive our hometown, in our insignificance'. Any comments?
If there is a God, he's pretty arrogant.
He's kind of saying 'love me or go to hell' !!
I can live a clean life, doing nothing but good and trying to make a difference. But if I don't believe in God I'm dammed?!
Does that mean if there's someone else out ther who's not been so good. Maybe murdered or raped, but if they believe in and love God and ask for forgiveness, they'll be saved?!!
Sounds daft.
As for Eddie's lyrics, only one guy truely knows the meaning behind them.
Cymru Am Byth
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
Most design theorists find the theory that the designer is ‘supernatural’ more compelling, however a supernatural designer IS beyond the limits of scientific enquiry. I realize that you see this as a problem, and a ‘science stopper’, however if science is to be a search for truth, and if this is where the evidence leads as, so what!!
Well, we cant. That might be frustrating but it’s a fact and ID is not claiming otherwise. However, as I have said, although we cannot observe him/her/it directly, a supernatural designer IS inferred by the design that we see when we study nature. Non-observable causes CAN be inferred by studying their effects alone, the example of gravity, as I said, demonstrates this. We cannot observe gravity but its existence is inferred by its effects on matter, which we can observe. Your example from medical science is a case in point, if an incurable disease was cured by prayer, and this was medically documented, medical science WOULD infer a supernatural intervention. However this kind of thing is NOT what ID is concerned with. ID is concerned with the origin of complex biological systems.
So what? You can't go further. You can't go to where the evidence leads if it leads to the supernatural.
Even if you allow god into science. It doesn't change the scientific facts. You said you ID was entirely empirical in its methodology. It was the conclusions that had profound metaphysical implications.
Well, the theory of evolution is entirely empirical in its methodology. There is substantial evidence for evolution. Allow god into science, you'll have plenty of scientists who will simply say evolution is god's tool. The evidence for evolution is there, the metaphysical implications as well.
The best analogy for ‘origins science’ is forensics. This is because forensic science, like origins science, is unable to observe the event that it is concerned with, rather it has to make inferences about it from what the event has left behind for us to observe. Lets say, someone has died, the forensic experts come and investigate the evidence that the death has left behind in order the determine whether the person died by ‘natural’ causes, or whether an ‘intelligent’ agent was involved, i.e the person was murdered. Now, in the absence of a murderer to ‘study’, the forensic scientist will probably consider both ‘models’ (murder or natural death) and see which one best explains the evidence. As has been shown on many occasions, the actual evidence can often be interpreted quite convincingly either way, and forensic scientists can often be wrong. Why? Because with forensics, as with origins science, we CANNOT observe the event, therefore there is much room for speculation and all evidence has to be interpreted by reference to a model, or theory, about what actually happened. However, it is also true that 'good' forensic science will be able to establish the existence of a murderer, even if they are unable to observe him/her and cannot discover their identity. Now, regarding ‘origins science’, you have said that have not made a strong case for allowing supernatural causes a place at the table in scientific investigation. I will now make that case, but first consider that if a forensic scientist worked within a rule that stated: ‘all deaths are by natural causes’, nobody would ever get arrested for murder, even if the dead man had an axe hanging out of his head.
It's quite sad if that's the best analogy. And it is based entirely on a play of words.
A natural death is a death in accordance with nature, normal or to be expected. A murder is not natural or in accordance with nature, it is not normal and it is not expected. So, you reason, a murder or muderer is supernatural. This is not the case, however. Murder is an unnatural death, caused by man. And man happens to be natural, not supernatural.
Why investigate a murder/death anyway? It's god divine plan, isn't it?
From Philosophy we can discern that:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The Universe has a beginning.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.
OK, show me proof the universe has a beginning. You can't because we don't know. You start your reasoning with something we cannot verify and which you don't know is true.
Wecome to the thread bookem.
I suggest you look up the word 'misquote' in your dictionary. I have not misquoted Dawkins, he did say this. Of course Dawkins doen't agree that biological systems WERE designed, thats why his statement is even more revealing, and why it gives the point MORE power. I have not, as you suggest, ignored the word 'appearances', but if you like we can examine it further. After making the statement 'biology is the sudy of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose', Dawkins goes on to explain that:
'All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics'
This is rather like my forensic scientist saying 'ok the deceased person does APPEAR to have an axe embedded in his head but ALL APPEARANCES TO THE CONTRARY, we KNOW that he died from 'natural' causes because, after all, forensic science is: 'the study of things that happened by natural causes'.
This IS what is going on in this debate, thats why the whole argument is about the definition of science. 90% of the campaign against ID does not engage with the evidence, it just keeps says 'science is the study of things that happened by natural causes' therefore 'ID is not science' therefore ID CANNOT have a case. Lets be brave and follow the evidence where it leads, even if it breaks the rules. Peace.
Science has been defined. You just don't agree with the definition and you want to re-define it. Oddly enough, you repeatedly said the definitions should not be made by the opponents.
The evidence of ID has been addressed. You refuse to accept or believe it. There's really nothing more they can do.
It's quite funny how you accuse the scientific community of not engaging with the evidence, yet fail to mention that ID barely has any evidence and mainly tries to gain power and influence through politics and propaganda videos. ID is 90% politics and popularizing.
Let's be brave and indeed follow the evidence where it leads: evolution. Oh wait, this isn't about actually looking at the evidence or being brave for that matter, it's about wanting this view, regardless of proof or theory, to be accepted.
Hi. Lisa.
Welcome to the thread.
I guess GTF could be understood that way but I seriously hope thats not the case. If it is, then I think Ed would be setting hmself as up as some kind of Messiah figure, making his statement 'there are no fucking messiahs in rock' sound a bit hypocritical. If Ed thinks he's the one who was stripped, stabbed, then 'rose up' and 'floated back down' to share the key to locks on everyones chains, and to give away his love, he is one seriously deluded rock star. I think he's talking about someone else, and only one person seems to fit the bill. Peace.
It could be about anyone. To you it only points to one person. To me it doesn't.
Vedder imagined the song as a children's book, "a 20-page cardboard book with a line on each page and a picture to go with it. It's a fable, that's all. The music almost gives you this feeling of flight, and I really love singing the part at the end, which is about rising above anybody's comments about what you do and still giving your love away. You know -- not becoming bitter and reclusive, not condemning the whole world because of the actions of a few."
It's a story. It could be about Jesus, Mother Theresa, some surfer he met, himself, a fictional character... Anyone.
To me it's about anyone who dares to be happy, regardless of what people say and do. Some people might take advantage of your love, some might ridicule you... And it is inspite of all this negativity that you still rise, you're happy, free and you wants others to be free and happy too. You do so by singing, surfing or whatever it is you do... just being yourself...
The only reason you think Ed would be deluded is because you already gave that song a religious meaning.
'we never listen, voice inside, so drowned out, drowned you are, you are you are a furry thing, and everything is you, you me, me you, its all related.'
I originally said God 'gently' pursues us, but i edited it out because sometimes, If we keep resisting, he has to break us first, then put us back together.
'You can run from love, but if its really love it will find you, and catch you by the ear'
U2.
excuse me... what? God breaks us and then waits for us to come begging to his knee? is that how it works with your peaceful benevolent God? im sorry but that sounds way too much like grovelling to a vengeful God.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Hi. Lisa.
Welcome to the thread.
I guess GTF could be understood that way but I seriously hope thats not the case. If it is, then I think Ed would be setting hmself as up as some kind of Messiah figure, making his statement 'there are no fucking messiahs in rock' sound a bit hypocritical. If Ed thinks he's the one who was stripped, stabbed, then 'rose up' and 'floated back down' to share the key to locks on everyones chains, and to give away his love, he is one seriously deluded rock star. I think he's talking about someone else, and only one person seems to fit the bill. Peace.
You know what? You are dead wrong. Dead wrong.
"he still stands"...up yours! I went through a VERY nasty bout of illness that damn near killed me (or made me want to kill myself) and guess what I think..."I still stand!" So smack my ass and call me Jesus! Ed's been through the same thing...(and probably PTSD)...and he still stands.
And in terms of the surfing theme, which I think is what the song is about, Do you know the feeling of being on a surfboard and almost getting swamped or falling off, but hey! Despite the turbulance you're still standing? "Floated back down" refers to floating on a wave...
You epitomize the problem with religious zealots - trying desparately to find god and jesus in EVERYTHING, even when it isn't there, and then forcing it on people (i.e. your post quoted above)...in my opinion, your head is so cluttered with jesus that you can't think straight...Too narrow-minded...
And the first line of my post, how did that make you feel? Because that's what an awful lot of your posts sound like...
To Lisa, GTF is about whatever and whoever you want it to be about.
39 pages ago, the OP cited Eddie (yes our often tipsy, abortion supporting, f-bomb dropping Eddie Vedder) as a constant voice and co-seeker of truth in his spiritual journey. Why would you look to a man - especially this man and his habits and belief system- when searching for your God? I believe this to be the consummate problem with religion - relying on mankind to help you find God.
According to your Bible, only God has the right to judge a man's heart. Saying that Eddie isn't along for the ride (which I interpret as meaning he doesn't know God) seems a bit hypocritical to me. Possibly, I misunderstand what you are saying.
I get the feeling that many religious people don't even believe what they are saying, they just spew rhetoric, which in turn leads to walls of text and bleeding eyeballs. I just don't get a feeling of sincerity in the responses. More like dealing with a robot or minion who can't think for themselves. It's very sad! This is what drives people away from the God, of whose existence, you are so desperately trying to convince them.
39 pages ago, the OP cited Eddie (yes our often tipsy, abortion supporting, f-bomb dropping Eddie Vedder) as a constant voice and co-seeker of truth in his spiritual journey. Why would you look to a man - especially this man and his habits and belief system- when searching for your God? I believe this to be the consummate problem with religion - relying on mankind to help you find God.
Please understand that my posts are so soft because I do not want to push them on people. If someone wants to know my lessons that have lead me to my thoughts on God, which I think are very individual, (so much unlike either Christian or athiest due to the personal things that got me here) and so I trust that each one's life are their own path and gift and that I do not know the meaning of anyone's life---not even my own--until I am done here--which I pray will be not anytime soon----so I can't tell you or anyone what to do.
In all due respect, perhaps you do not find meaning in the posts that promote the belief in God because you are either not ready or maybe not destined to believe.
He came for the weak and the sick, He says in the Bible.............maybe you are not either at this point.
It doesn't mean He is not watching, if I CHOOSE to believe, that is, I must acknowledge Him in all people's lives.
I am not chosen, nor special, nor better than you or anyone else. That is what makes you a Christian; to me, that is, to be able to say that I am humbled by His help. If I am haughty, then I have not learned a thing. NOTHING.
I respect you. Not in a condescending way; just a truly fellow person way.
please know that. if I have offended you, forgive me?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Another song that I think is relevant to this thread is insignificance. I think those who are familiar with the apocalyptic literature from the Bible will agree that this song sounds very much like a plea to God for mercy in the coming apocalypse. I love the image of someone in a bar selecting a 'protest' song on the dukebox and dancing 'with irreverance' as the great disaster strikes. Its so reminiscent of what Jesus said 'people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man'. the first chorus is interesting in saying 'the full moon is dead skin' and reminds me of wht revelation says will happen at the apocalypse: I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. 'The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red'. the song seems to call out to God for forgiveness, rather like Jesus did on the cross (forgive them father they know not what they do) saying 'please fogive our hometown, in our insignificance'. Any comments?
Yeah, Tim, hello.........
I will comment surely.
I think that Eddie is saying (if I am to be so bold as to presume I know--which I do not; I only guess), is that God is there, but we are responsible for our actions, thoughts, lives to a point (not all get what they should I think), and to put our responsibilities on Him and take on nothing , then we are mislead.
So many times I hear things in his writings that could presume to be about God. Garden is a good example.
I am not saying anything like he is 100% into the thoughts I think or believe, but I am just saying that I respect him as a person who is well versed in their own life, have been through a lot and seen a lot and the views he expresses come from what has been drawn in from his own experiences.
I respect anyone; Eddie, those here, those I meet, myself (respected) when I and those mentioned have taken in, processed and thought out what they are claiming to believe. Blind faith, to me, is not credible. Only when we can apply it to reality can I say, I believe.
what do you think?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
If there is a God, he's pretty arrogant.
He's kind of saying 'love me or go to hell' !!
I can live a clean life, doing nothing but good and trying to make a difference. But if I don't believe in God I'm dammed?!
Does that mean if there's someone else out ther who's not been so good. Maybe murdered or raped, but if they believe in and love God and ask for forgiveness, they'll be saved?!!
Sounds daft.
As for Eddie's lyrics, only one guy truely knows the meaning behind them.
No, that is not the true God. Please allow me to tell you I am not pushing Him on you or anyone.
but that is why religion is so misguided a lot of times; it teaches arrogance.
I have been ripped to shreads in my Bible Study so I will NOT share this there, but I will say again, that I believe that if He was to say, "It is the Father's will that all shall come and none will perish", then I believe there is a good chance that He will say at the end to all, "well are You coming??".
We are vengeful not Him.
please check out my poetry on Him if would like on the poetry thread. If not that is cool, I am not telling you to read it to say that I wrote something worthy of you reading it, I am saying that if you read this you may better understand what I feel about the belief in Jesus.
did I sound respectful of you? I hope so truly.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Hey Cosmo, thanks for your question about whether or not there is a link between ID and creationism, but I am still waiting for you to find me the page number of 'pandas' that says the world is 6000 years old. When you find it we can carry on our discussion.
...
I recant that comment in err. Creationists believe the biblical sense and place the Earth as no older than about 6,000 years. 'Of Pandas and People' does not state this. In fact, Pandas seems to ignore the age of the Earth altogether... as if it did not matter. It also does not identify the 'Designer'... that is at the center... probably due to naming Him would blow their cover.
...
Now, please... answer this:
Is Intelligent Design, in any way, linked to Creationism?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No, writersu, I am not offended by your posts. You do not speak in an arrogant voice and you appear to be able to conjure and express your own thoughts.
Just twixt you and me, I do believe there is a God and in the teachings of Jesus - the rest of the Bible - especially the OT is a bit suspect to me (but that's a whole different thread!) I also believe in evolution. And to me, in my mind, in my heart, between me and my God - it makes sense. I figure if we were all supposed to think and believe in exactly the same manner, we would all have turned out as a batch of clones.
Faith is a unique and personal experience. I respect those who believe in a like mind and those who don't. My struggle lies in tolerating those who think they know exactly what God is all about or what Eddie means with each of his lyrics. Both are impossible as we are neither a deity or Eddie. Although, Eddie may be a deity - it's still up for debate
Sorry if you thought I was speaking harshly of you in my previous post. Peace my friend.
So what? You can't go further. You can't go to where the evidence leads if it leads to the supernatural.
Well, yes you can, but it means you have to look outside of science. If such supernatural being exists, he would be outside of our comprehension, unless he chose to disclose himself to us through a revelation. If science points us to a designer, we should investigate the 'claimed' revelations from God, if one of them has an account of origins that can explain the evidence that we observe we should go with it. If not we should be Deists.
Even if you allow god into science. It doesn't change the scientific facts. You said you ID was entirely empirical in its methodology. It was the conclusions that had profound metaphysical implications.
Well, the theory of evolution is entirely empirical in its methodology. There is substantial evidence for evolution. Allow god into science, you'll have plenty of scientists who will simply say evolution is god's tool. The evidence for evolution is there, the metaphysical implications as well.
I agree with most of this.
Neither of the two metaphysical definitions of science (1. The investigation of God's creation, and 2. The investigation of things that happened by natural causes.) are fundamental to science. This why ID and Darwinism can BOTH be scientific. What IS fundamental is EMPIRICISM, Empiricism and Naturalism are often confused but they are not the same thing. Science is a METHOD, not a philosophy. Empiricism is about method, that’s why science has been able to flourish under both philosophies. Darwin's theory was 'empirical', in that it was based on observation, but the empirical evidence that we should find in support of it is curiously absent. As Darwin said:
‘Why is not every geological formation charged with such [intermediate] links, why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections, which may be urged against my theory.'
Well 150 years on, we still don’t have the ‘transitional fossils’. To illustrate this, consider this response, in 1979, to a letter to Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History]asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book on Evolution:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
This is one reason why Darwinism, which began as a credible scientific theory, is now anti-empirical, and supported only by naturalistic philosophy, which makes it ‘a fact’ regardless of empirical evidence. Peace.
It's quite sad if that's [forensics] the best analogy. And it is based entirely on a play of words.
A natural death is a death in accordance with nature, normal or to be expected. A murder is not natural or in accordance with nature, it is not normal and it is not expected. So, you reason, a murder or muderer is supernatural. This is not the case, however. Murder is an unnatural death, caused by man. And man happens to be natural, not supernatural.
Why investigate a murder/death anyway? It's god divine plan, isn't it?
Oh come on Collin. I thought the play on words was quite good. Read the analogy again, the play on words is not important, I just thought it was helpful. There are 2 ways someone can die – one without an outside intelligent agent (murderer), and one with one. The forensic scientist will often have to determine which is responsible. Forensics are open to both possibilities. In origins science, naturalism is NOT open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes, it rules out intelligent causes without empirical foundation and imposes this on science. That’s what the analogy is about, it works.
OK, show me proof the universe has a beginning. You can't because we don't know. You start your reasoning with something we cannot verify and which you don't know is true.
If you believe in the ‘Big Bang’ then we agree that there was a ‘singularity’, a beginning. If you do not, then I guess you must be a ‘steady state theory’ man but I thought you were a little bit more mainstream than that.
No, that is not the true God. Please allow me to tell you I am not pushing Him on you or anyone.
but that is why religion is so misguided a lot of times; it teaches arrogance.
I have been ripped to shreads in my Bible Study so I will NOT share this there, but I will say again, that I believe that if He was to say, "It is the Father's will that all shall come and none will perish", then I believe there is a good chance that He will say at the end to all, "well are You coming??".
We are vengeful not Him.
please check out my poetry on Him if would like on the poetry thread. If not that is cool, I am not telling you to read it to say that I wrote something worthy of you reading it, I am saying that if you read this you may better understand what I feel about the belief in Jesus.
did I sound respectful of you? I hope so truly.
I respectfully disagree.
Seems we forget about the Old Testament side of the bible.
I'm stating this as an opinion and I'm not trying to put you or your belief down, but one only needs to read Leviticus 26 or maybe begin at Deuteronomy 28:15 or the whole passage of Numbers 31. I find it interesting how christians often pick and choose only the parts of the bible they like and ignore the other side of it.
...
I recant that comment in err. Creationists believe the biblical sense and place the Earth as no older than about 6,000 years. 'Of Pandas and People' does not state this. In fact, Pandas seems to ignore the age of the Earth altogether... as if it did not matter. It also does not identify the 'Designer'... that is at the center... probably due to naming Him would blow their cover.
...
Now, please... answer this:
Is Intelligent Design, in any way, linked to Creationism?
Thanks Cosmo.
You have earned much respect for your honesty.
Intelligent design and Young Earth creationism have much in common, YEC'ists are happy to use ID arguments, but this will not generally happen the other way round. This is because YEC is a faith position whilst ID is not. YEC is based on a literal interpretation of genesis, and uses science in fitting together what we read in the text and what we see in the fossils etc. YEC interprets the evidence through the 'spectacles' of Genesis, just as Darwinists interpret it through Darwinism. Personally I think the evidence fits better with Genesis but thats just my view. ID, on the other hand, does NOT use any religious text to interpret the data. ID simply looks for evidence of design in biological systems and, for good scientific reasons, infers from the empirical data that there is a designer. To try and identify the designer goes beyond science so ID does not try to do this. Some within the movement are Young earth Creationists, many are not. Michael Behe, for example accepts common ancestory, and Michael Denton is a Deist. Many Jews and Muslims also accept ID.
Thanks Cosmo.
You have earned much respect for your honesty.
Intelligent design and Young Earth creationism have much in common, YEC'ists are happy to use ID arguments, but this will not generally happen the other way round. This is because YEC is a faith position whilst ID is not. YEC is based on a literal interpretation of genesis, and uses science in fitting together what we read in the text and what we see in the fossils etc. YEC interprets the evidence through the 'spectacles' of Genesis, just as Darwinists interpret it through Darwinism. Personally I think the evidence fits better with Genesis but thats just my view. ID, on the other hand, does NOT use any religious text to interpret the data. ID simply looks for evidence of design in biological systems and, for good scientific reasons, infers from the empirical data that there is a designer. To try and identify the designer goes beyond science so ID does not try to do this. Some within the movement are Young earth Creationists, many are not. Michael Behe, for example accepts common ancestory, and Michael Denton is a Deist. Many Jews and Muslims also accept ID.
I hope this clarifies things.Peace.
...
Still... Creationism and Intelligent Design share the same precepts... a 'Creator' equals a 'Designer'... the abrupt emergence of irreducibly complex organisms... etc...
Seems to me... Christian Fundamentalism evolved into Creation Science to Creationism to Intelligent Design by removing those issues that are irrefutable, such as the Age of The Earth, transitional fossils and gaps in the fossil record.
...
And something else that confuses me... what do Intelligent Design proponents say about the dinosaurs? I mean, Dinosaurs seem like very complex living organisms. Did Dinosaurs spring up with flagellar bacterium, humans and pandas?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Still... Creationism and Intelligent Design share the same precepts... a 'Creator' equals a 'Designer'... the abrupt emergence of irreducibly complex organisms... etc...
Seems to me... Christian Fundamentalism evolved into Creation Science to Creationism to Intelligent Design by removing those issues that are irrefutable, such as the Age of The Earth, transitional fossils and gaps in the fossil record.
No. If you trace the ancestry of ID you go back to Michael Denton (a Deist). ID is a movement of scientists whose observations have caused them to doubt the ability of mutation and natural selection alone to generate all that we see today. Yes 'creator' and 'designer' mean the same thing, which is my whole point about 'pandas and people'. science can infer this, it just can't tell us anything about the designer/creator.
And something else that confuses me... what do Intelligent Design proponents say about the dinosaurs? I mean, Dinosaurs seem like very complex living organisms. Did Dinosaurs spring up with flagellar bacterium, humans and pandas?
ID says nothing about dinosaurs. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, says that dinosaurs were created on day six, largely perished in the flood, survived on the Ark, and lived until medieval times. This prediction is substantiated by the many historical reports and illustrations of 'dragons' in history.
No. If you trace the ancestry of ID you go back to Michael Denton (a Deist). ID is a movement of scientists whose observations have caused them to doubt the ability of mutation and natural selection alone to generate all that we see today. Yes 'creator' and 'designer' mean the same thing, which is my whole point about 'pandas and people'. science can infer this, it just can't tell us anything about the designer/creator.
ID says nothing about dinosaurs. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, says that dinosaurs were created on day six, largely perished in the flood, survived on the Ark, and lived until medieval times. This prediction is substantiated by the many historical reports and illustrations of 'dragons' in history.
...
Intelligent Design does not address the Age of the Earth... or Dinosaurs. So, I wonder, how can it call itself a science if it does not even attempt to address these questions? I can understand Intelligent Design wanting to divorce itself from those ridiculous claims about dinosaurs on the Ark... but, still... Dinosaurs DID in fact live... didn't they? From an Intelligent Design point of view... Where did they come from and where did they go?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
39 pages ago, the OP cited Eddie (yes our often tipsy, abortion supporting, f-bomb dropping Eddie Vedder) as a constant voice and co-seeker of truth in his spiritual journey. Why would you look to a man - especially this man and his habits and belief system- when searching for your God? I believe this to be the consummate problem with religion - relying on mankind to help you find God.
Hi Keiran.
F-bombing is not a sin, wine is a gift from God to 'make merry the heart of man' (Biblical proverb). I never said that I looked to Ed to help me find God, thats just your cynicism rewriting my words. I said that eds words used to 'reflect' my own journey, as he was also searching. If I was following Ed, I would now be an atheist, evidently, this is not the case.
According to your Bible, only God has the right to judge a man's heart. Saying that Eddie isn't along for the ride (which I interpret as meaning he doesn't know God) seems a bit hypocritical to me. Possibly, I misunderstand what you are saying.
I have not judged Ed. He has proclaimed his atheism and justified it with reference to evolution. There is nothing hypocritical about me stating this, it is a fact, so yes, you have misjudged what I am saying.
I get the feeling that many religious people don't even believe what they are saying, they just spew rhetoric, which in turn leads to walls of text and bleeding eyeballs. I just don't get a feeling of sincerity in the responses. More like dealing with a robot or minion who can't think for themselves. It's very sad! This is what drives people away from the God, of whose existence, you are so desperately trying to convince them.
I am sincere, I believe everything I have said. if you think I am insincere thats fine but I dont appreciate your calling me a 'robot or minion who cant think for himself', I have made all my own choices and they have not been without struggle or cost. If there is anyone judging here, I think its you.
...
Intelligent Design does not address the Age of the Earth... or Dinosaurs. So, I wonder, how can it call itself a science if it does not even attempt to address these questions? I can understand Intelligent Design wanting to divorce itself from those ridiculous claims about dinosaurs on the Ark... but, still... Dinosaurs DID in fact live... didn't they? From an Intelligent Design point of view... Where did they come from and where did they go?
The fact that ID does not deal with dinosaurs does not make it unscientific. ID is, at present a relativly narrow field, it is not trying to explain everything, it does not have to explain everything in order to be good science.
P.s Why is it ridiculous to think that dinosaurs were on the ark?
...up yours!
You epitomize the problem with religious zealots - trying desparately to find god and jesus in EVERYTHING, even when it isn't there, and then forcing it on people (i.e. your post quoted above)...in my opinion, your head is so cluttered with jesus that you can't think straight...Too narrow-minded...
Comments
so cool you put it like that because you are right no one gets saved, it is an internal calling that we decide to pick up on or not.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
well i guess hes given up on me then cause i dont hear a peep from him.
and if there is no calling, as you both put it, to be heard?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Doo do do do doo do doo, Doo do do do doo do doo..."
Not at all, Cate, truly maybe you don't hear it because you are doing alright on your own and if He is to be present (as well as welcomed by you) in your life, you are not in need at this time.
I have heard Him loudest and best when I am prostrate, crying in front of my cross in my bedroom. That is when I listen.
I don't think I am chosen or picked or special, hell no, but that is the cool thing if I can hear Him so can all who listen.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Hi. Lisa.
Welcome to the thread.
I guess GTF could be understood that way but I seriously hope thats not the case. If it is, then I think Ed would be setting hmself as up as some kind of Messiah figure, making his statement 'there are no fucking messiahs in rock' sound a bit hypocritical. If Ed thinks he's the one who was stripped, stabbed, then 'rose up' and 'floated back down' to share the key to locks on everyones chains, and to give away his love, he is one seriously deluded rock star. I think he's talking about someone else, and only one person seems to fit the bill. Peace.
Hi writersu
Good to have you around.
'we never listen, voice inside, so drowned out, drowned you are, you are you are a furry thing, and everything is you, you me, me you, its all related.'
I originally said God 'gently' pursues us, but i edited it out because sometimes, If we keep resisting, he has to break us first, then put us back together.
'You can run from love, but if its really love it will find you, and catch you by the ear'
U2.
He's kind of saying 'love me or go to hell' !!
I can live a clean life, doing nothing but good and trying to make a difference. But if I don't believe in God I'm dammed?!
Does that mean if there's someone else out ther who's not been so good. Maybe murdered or raped, but if they believe in and love God and ask for forgiveness, they'll be saved?!!
Sounds daft.
As for Eddie's lyrics, only one guy truely knows the meaning behind them.
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
So what? You can't go further. You can't go to where the evidence leads if it leads to the supernatural.
Even if you allow god into science. It doesn't change the scientific facts. You said you ID was entirely empirical in its methodology. It was the conclusions that had profound metaphysical implications.
Well, the theory of evolution is entirely empirical in its methodology. There is substantial evidence for evolution. Allow god into science, you'll have plenty of scientists who will simply say evolution is god's tool. The evidence for evolution is there, the metaphysical implications as well.
It's quite sad if that's the best analogy. And it is based entirely on a play of words.
A natural death is a death in accordance with nature, normal or to be expected. A murder is not natural or in accordance with nature, it is not normal and it is not expected. So, you reason, a murder or muderer is supernatural. This is not the case, however. Murder is an unnatural death, caused by man. And man happens to be natural, not supernatural.
Why investigate a murder/death anyway? It's god divine plan, isn't it?
OK, show me proof the universe has a beginning. You can't because we don't know. You start your reasoning with something we cannot verify and which you don't know is true.
naděje umírá poslední
Science has been defined. You just don't agree with the definition and you want to re-define it. Oddly enough, you repeatedly said the definitions should not be made by the opponents.
The evidence of ID has been addressed. You refuse to accept or believe it. There's really nothing more they can do.
It's quite funny how you accuse the scientific community of not engaging with the evidence, yet fail to mention that ID barely has any evidence and mainly tries to gain power and influence through politics and propaganda videos. ID is 90% politics and popularizing.
Let's be brave and indeed follow the evidence where it leads: evolution. Oh wait, this isn't about actually looking at the evidence or being brave for that matter, it's about wanting this view, regardless of proof or theory, to be accepted.
naděje umírá poslední
It could be about anyone. To you it only points to one person. To me it doesn't.
http://pearljamhistory.no.sapo.pt/PJArticles_Interviews_02-08-98_-_philadelphia_inquirer.htm
It's a story. It could be about Jesus, Mother Theresa, some surfer he met, himself, a fictional character... Anyone.
To me it's about anyone who dares to be happy, regardless of what people say and do. Some people might take advantage of your love, some might ridicule you... And it is inspite of all this negativity that you still rise, you're happy, free and you wants others to be free and happy too. You do so by singing, surfing or whatever it is you do... just being yourself...
The only reason you think Ed would be deluded is because you already gave that song a religious meaning.
naděje umírá poslední
excuse me... what? God breaks us and then waits for us to come begging to his knee? is that how it works with your peaceful benevolent God? im sorry but that sounds way too much like grovelling to a vengeful God.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You know what? You are dead wrong. Dead wrong.
"he still stands"...up yours! I went through a VERY nasty bout of illness that damn near killed me (or made me want to kill myself) and guess what I think..."I still stand!" So smack my ass and call me Jesus! Ed's been through the same thing...(and probably PTSD)...and he still stands.
And in terms of the surfing theme, which I think is what the song is about, Do you know the feeling of being on a surfboard and almost getting swamped or falling off, but hey! Despite the turbulance you're still standing? "Floated back down" refers to floating on a wave...
You epitomize the problem with religious zealots - trying desparately to find god and jesus in EVERYTHING, even when it isn't there, and then forcing it on people (i.e. your post quoted above)...in my opinion, your head is so cluttered with jesus that you can't think straight...Too narrow-minded...
And the first line of my post, how did that make you feel? Because that's what an awful lot of your posts sound like...
To Lisa, GTF is about whatever and whoever you want it to be about.
According to your Bible, only God has the right to judge a man's heart. Saying that Eddie isn't along for the ride (which I interpret as meaning he doesn't know God) seems a bit hypocritical to me. Possibly, I misunderstand what you are saying.
I get the feeling that many religious people don't even believe what they are saying, they just spew rhetoric, which in turn leads to walls of text and bleeding eyeballs. I just don't get a feeling of sincerity in the responses. More like dealing with a robot or minion who can't think for themselves. It's very sad! This is what drives people away from the God, of whose existence, you are so desperately trying to convince them.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Yeah, Tim, hello.........
I will comment surely.
I think that Eddie is saying (if I am to be so bold as to presume I know--which I do not; I only guess), is that God is there, but we are responsible for our actions, thoughts, lives to a point (not all get what they should I think), and to put our responsibilities on Him and take on nothing , then we are mislead.
So many times I hear things in his writings that could presume to be about God. Garden is a good example.
I am not saying anything like he is 100% into the thoughts I think or believe, but I am just saying that I respect him as a person who is well versed in their own life, have been through a lot and seen a lot and the views he expresses come from what has been drawn in from his own experiences.
I respect anyone; Eddie, those here, those I meet, myself (respected) when I and those mentioned have taken in, processed and thought out what they are claiming to believe. Blind faith, to me, is not credible. Only when we can apply it to reality can I say, I believe.
what do you think?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
No, that is not the true God. Please allow me to tell you I am not pushing Him on you or anyone.
but that is why religion is so misguided a lot of times; it teaches arrogance.
I have been ripped to shreads in my Bible Study so I will NOT share this there, but I will say again, that I believe that if He was to say, "It is the Father's will that all shall come and none will perish", then I believe there is a good chance that He will say at the end to all, "well are You coming??".
We are vengeful not Him.
please check out my poetry on Him if would like on the poetry thread. If not that is cool, I am not telling you to read it to say that I wrote something worthy of you reading it, I am saying that if you read this you may better understand what I feel about the belief in Jesus.
did I sound respectful of you? I hope so truly.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I recant that comment in err. Creationists believe the biblical sense and place the Earth as no older than about 6,000 years. 'Of Pandas and People' does not state this. In fact, Pandas seems to ignore the age of the Earth altogether... as if it did not matter. It also does not identify the 'Designer'... that is at the center... probably due to naming Him would blow their cover.
...
Now, please... answer this:
Is Intelligent Design, in any way, linked to Creationism?
Hail, Hail!!!
Just twixt you and me, I do believe there is a God and in the teachings of Jesus - the rest of the Bible - especially the OT is a bit suspect to me (but that's a whole different thread!) I also believe in evolution. And to me, in my mind, in my heart, between me and my God - it makes sense. I figure if we were all supposed to think and believe in exactly the same manner, we would all have turned out as a batch of clones.
Faith is a unique and personal experience. I respect those who believe in a like mind and those who don't. My struggle lies in tolerating those who think they know exactly what God is all about or what Eddie means with each of his lyrics. Both are impossible as we are neither a deity or Eddie. Although, Eddie may be a deity - it's still up for debate
Sorry if you thought I was speaking harshly of you in my previous post. Peace my friend.
Good to have you back.
Well, yes you can, but it means you have to look outside of science. If such supernatural being exists, he would be outside of our comprehension, unless he chose to disclose himself to us through a revelation. If science points us to a designer, we should investigate the 'claimed' revelations from God, if one of them has an account of origins that can explain the evidence that we observe we should go with it. If not we should be Deists.
I agree with most of this.
Neither of the two metaphysical definitions of science (1. The investigation of God's creation, and 2. The investigation of things that happened by natural causes.) are fundamental to science. This why ID and Darwinism can BOTH be scientific. What IS fundamental is EMPIRICISM, Empiricism and Naturalism are often confused but they are not the same thing. Science is a METHOD, not a philosophy. Empiricism is about method, that’s why science has been able to flourish under both philosophies. Darwin's theory was 'empirical', in that it was based on observation, but the empirical evidence that we should find in support of it is curiously absent. As Darwin said:
‘Why is not every geological formation charged with such [intermediate] links, why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections, which may be urged against my theory.'
Well 150 years on, we still don’t have the ‘transitional fossils’. To illustrate this, consider this response, in 1979, to a letter to Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History]asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book on Evolution:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
This is one reason why Darwinism, which began as a credible scientific theory, is now anti-empirical, and supported only by naturalistic philosophy, which makes it ‘a fact’ regardless of empirical evidence. Peace.
Oh come on Collin. I thought the play on words was quite good. Read the analogy again, the play on words is not important, I just thought it was helpful. There are 2 ways someone can die – one without an outside intelligent agent (murderer), and one with one. The forensic scientist will often have to determine which is responsible. Forensics are open to both possibilities. In origins science, naturalism is NOT open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes, it rules out intelligent causes without empirical foundation and imposes this on science. That’s what the analogy is about, it works.
If you believe in the ‘Big Bang’ then we agree that there was a ‘singularity’, a beginning. If you do not, then I guess you must be a ‘steady state theory’ man but I thought you were a little bit more mainstream than that.
I respectfully disagree.
Seems we forget about the Old Testament side of the bible.
I'm stating this as an opinion and I'm not trying to put you or your belief down, but one only needs to read Leviticus 26 or maybe begin at Deuteronomy 28:15 or the whole passage of Numbers 31. I find it interesting how christians often pick and choose only the parts of the bible they like and ignore the other side of it.
Thanks Cosmo.
You have earned much respect for your honesty.
Intelligent design and Young Earth creationism have much in common, YEC'ists are happy to use ID arguments, but this will not generally happen the other way round. This is because YEC is a faith position whilst ID is not. YEC is based on a literal interpretation of genesis, and uses science in fitting together what we read in the text and what we see in the fossils etc. YEC interprets the evidence through the 'spectacles' of Genesis, just as Darwinists interpret it through Darwinism. Personally I think the evidence fits better with Genesis but thats just my view. ID, on the other hand, does NOT use any religious text to interpret the data. ID simply looks for evidence of design in biological systems and, for good scientific reasons, infers from the empirical data that there is a designer. To try and identify the designer goes beyond science so ID does not try to do this. Some within the movement are Young earth Creationists, many are not. Michael Behe, for example accepts common ancestory, and Michael Denton is a Deist. Many Jews and Muslims also accept ID.
I hope this clarifies things.Peace.
Still... Creationism and Intelligent Design share the same precepts... a 'Creator' equals a 'Designer'... the abrupt emergence of irreducibly complex organisms... etc...
Seems to me... Christian Fundamentalism evolved into Creation Science to Creationism to Intelligent Design by removing those issues that are irrefutable, such as the Age of The Earth, transitional fossils and gaps in the fossil record.
...
And something else that confuses me... what do Intelligent Design proponents say about the dinosaurs? I mean, Dinosaurs seem like very complex living organisms. Did Dinosaurs spring up with flagellar bacterium, humans and pandas?
Hail, Hail!!!
No. If you trace the ancestry of ID you go back to Michael Denton (a Deist). ID is a movement of scientists whose observations have caused them to doubt the ability of mutation and natural selection alone to generate all that we see today. Yes 'creator' and 'designer' mean the same thing, which is my whole point about 'pandas and people'. science can infer this, it just can't tell us anything about the designer/creator.
ID says nothing about dinosaurs. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, says that dinosaurs were created on day six, largely perished in the flood, survived on the Ark, and lived until medieval times. This prediction is substantiated by the many historical reports and illustrations of 'dragons' in history.
Intelligent Design does not address the Age of the Earth... or Dinosaurs. So, I wonder, how can it call itself a science if it does not even attempt to address these questions? I can understand Intelligent Design wanting to divorce itself from those ridiculous claims about dinosaurs on the Ark... but, still... Dinosaurs DID in fact live... didn't they? From an Intelligent Design point of view... Where did they come from and where did they go?
Hail, Hail!!!
Hi Keiran.
F-bombing is not a sin, wine is a gift from God to 'make merry the heart of man' (Biblical proverb). I never said that I looked to Ed to help me find God, thats just your cynicism rewriting my words. I said that eds words used to 'reflect' my own journey, as he was also searching. If I was following Ed, I would now be an atheist, evidently, this is not the case.
I have not judged Ed. He has proclaimed his atheism and justified it with reference to evolution. There is nothing hypocritical about me stating this, it is a fact, so yes, you have misjudged what I am saying.
I am sincere, I believe everything I have said. if you think I am insincere thats fine but I dont appreciate your calling me a 'robot or minion who cant think for himself', I have made all my own choices and they have not been without struggle or cost. If there is anyone judging here, I think its you.
The fact that ID does not deal with dinosaurs does not make it unscientific. ID is, at present a relativly narrow field, it is not trying to explain everything, it does not have to explain everything in order to be good science.
P.s Why is it ridiculous to think that dinosaurs were on the ark?
Help. Moderator.
Seriously, all I can say is 'God Bless you'.