Jump to content


Full Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oak Forest

Orikal's Achievements




  1. SF is definitely an attractive option from a home size standpoint, but I'm a little leery of the area. There's an awful lot of traffic noise from 610, and many homes appear to have seen better days.
  2. Thanks. We have looked at Timergrove, areas of Spring Branch, and have even looked as far out as neighborhoods in the Energy Corridor. I'm just trying to make sure I'm not overlooking an area that may meet our criteria.
  3. We recently had a new addition to the family, and our 2/1 is beginning to feel a little cramped. I check HAR several times a week looking for homes for sale in the Oak Forest/Garden Oaks area, and they seem to be selling like hot cakes. We love the area, and would ideally like to remain here, but what we're looking for (at least 3 beds, 2 baths, 1 car garage, larger lot with room for a pool) certainly limits our selections in the area. We also love the proximity to TC Jester park, shopping, the Galleria, and Downtown. Schools will obviously be an issue in the near future as well. Can anyone suggest other close-in neighborhoods which have homes of this vintage (40/50/60's) which offer the ameneties we're looking for? We're looking to stay under $300K.
  4. It's a valid disctinction. However, not only are the Creationists rejecting/refusing to accept evolution by natural selection, they are also attempting to masquerade an extremely unscientific proposition as just that; science. A fable does not belong in a science classroom.
  5. The fact that someone may be offended by another's lack of belief in their creation fairy tale is of little consequence. Why be offended at all? Why would a Muslim be offended that a Hindu has a different creation myth? Why would a Christian Scientist be offended if a Seventh Day Adventist doesn't believe in Thetans? Why would a Mormon be offended that a Buddhist doesn't believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? Whether or not the fact that there are many, many different accounts of creation espoused by many, many religions throughout time leads one to the conclusion that they're all a bunch of hogwash, to be offended by another's lack of belief in their really neat story is ridiculous.
  6. I disagree. Whether you're talking about the specific field of evolutionary biology, or utilizing the word "evolution" as a broad catch-all for "science", there are many, many scientific findings which directly contradict religious dogmatism (the Earth is 6,000 years old, man co-existed with dinosaurs, and so forth). Regardless of the millions of accounts of creation espoused by the hundreds of thousands of religions which have existed at one time or another on this planet, there has not been any credible "evidence" put forth that would lead an individual to favor one story over another. Evolution may have gaps, but the evidence at least points us in a direction. Ultimately though, I have no problem with creationism being taught in school, as long as it's not masqueraded as science. If we decide we should have Religion 101 or Religious Accounts of Creation classes taught in high school, I'm fully in favor of it. In fact, I think the more one learns about religion, the better. But a line needs to be drawn between fables and empirical evidence. BTW, which parts of creationism are true?
  7. A great (book) primer would be Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman. I found this one enjoyable because it references many facets of the topic including textual mistranslation/transcription/manipulation, the Gnostic Gospels, what exactly we do have (the earliest documents) for books of the bible, and so forth. I've found many other books on this subject are dry and not engaging. While this book certainly heads this direction in many places, it remains accessible for the layperson (like me).
  8. I wholeheartedly agree. I suppose I could have used a different word, but the fact remains, all is perception. I addressed this in my original post in this thread. And, correct, the adjective I use towards the very logical conclusion has no plausibility in my position. But then again, I never said it did. How I feel about the conclusion has no bearing on the conclusion itself. Edit: Nice strawman, though.
  9. And this was succinctly answered in the reply. To word it differently: You are absolutely correct that a system is in place which allows us to survive (called an open system). And yes, many factors need to be present in an open system in order for biological expressions to propagate. In our system, "life" has adapted beautifully to flourish given the conditions of the (eco)system. For example, biological life as we know it could not exist on Mars. But this does not indicate that no form of life, more adapted to different conditions, has never existed on Mars.
  10. I certainly understand your point, however this option was not ignored, but its answer implied. One may fabricate anything one wishes to poke "holes" in an all-but-certain conclusion. Wherever science has proven the bible to be verifiably false, literalists have unholstered the "Gaps" rebuttal, mentioned on page three. As millenia have passed, the areas where the "Gaps" assertion may settle have become narrower and narrower. Using past/present results as an indication of future findings, to say this is inconsistent is to either not understand, or to completely push aside fact. See Webster's definition of "delusion".
  11. Oh, but it does. For brevity's sake, I'll defer you back to my original post on page 3, regarding the "God of the Gaps" rebuttal. The question posited is "Prove the bible is not the literal word of god." Based on the logical proof provided, god is either; 1. Fake; a man-made concoction, or 2. Incorrect in its account of creation, or 3. A liar, purposely deceiving its own creation. Option number one is certainly the most logical conclusion. Options number two and three would be unsavory, to say the least.
  12. Actually, this is quite easy. Following the timetable outlined in the book of Genesis regarding the creation of the Earth, our world is concluded to be approximately 6,000 years old. Scientific inquiry has found this assertion to be utterly, completely false. This leaves us with two possible deductions: 1. The bible was written by men thousands of years ago, who had not 1/1000th the understanding of the world which we today take for granted, or 2. God was wrong about the age of his own creation. Since the tenents outlined in Genesis can be proven demonstrably false, it is logical to conlude the bible is not the literal word of god. Furthermore, the rules of logic dictate the burden of proof falls on the affirmative position. Do this for me; prove there is not a society of purple whatchamacalits living on Saturn. I'll wait.
  13. The evolution of what? Plants? Reptiles? Fish? Birds? Mammals? Humans? Bacteria? Micro or macro? Human inquiry, education, experimentation, and application have provided a wealth of knowledge regarding this subject. Assuming one comprehends the essential facts of evolution, the evidence at hand is all but undeniable in it
  14. It's called a "God of the Gaps" rebuttal. Don't understand something? Need to make a square peg fit a round hole? Fill in the gaps with the deity of your choice. Over the years, as science progresses our understanding of the world/universe in which we live, the gaps where god can hide have become narrower and narrower. And thus, Christians need to bend and twist their faith to match these new understandings. This is the major impetus for the Christian Apologetics movement; to reconcile biblical teachings with science. No, there is no evidence the bible is true. There is evidence that some of the events which are written in the bible actually occurred, but there is no evidence (outside of faith, which is not evidence) that the bible itself is a book of truths. In fact, it's fairly simple to show that the bible is factually incorrect in many, many areas, starting with the book of Genesis. And no, the world doesn't revolve around the fact that god (a god, any god, not just your god) exists. Your world view/perception/reality revolves around your belief that there is a god, but god is far from a fact. But I do respect your right to believe. You're well spoken and knowledgeable about your faith, which I've found to be rare.
  • Create New...