Why does Princey keep droning on vaguely about 'The Truth' when he believes that man-made idiocies like Creationism are fact?

It's really odd. Can someone please explain it to me? I'm serious...I really want to know.

Huh? What do u mean? dont understand the ??.

I am confused is that agaist Jw Teaching

Prince is a vague guy, thats part of his mystique.

The real truth will only surface after a combination of a firearm, Larry Graham and a grassy knoll.

At least he's not running for office, unlike Sarah Palin. A creationist a heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world. I'm an atheist and that would make me pray!

does this mean he doesn't believe in dinosaurs?

The song The Truth really doesn't adress creationism but speaking about creationism, some people think faith trumps science (Prince probably being one of them). Science tells us evolution has happened. Creationism tells us evolution has not happened, that some God created all species right away.Well, science always produces results, faith never does, who you gonna trust?

peter430044 said:

Well, I wasn't really refering to the song, THE TRUTH, directly. More loosly to the term and what its supposed to represent (just like Prince in fact). In various statements in the past, Prince always refers (arrogantly) to the 'truth' as if it will be revealed and is something that, by definition, he must already privy to. Anyway, my point is, if that's the case, how can he stand by an obvious untruth like Creationism - which isn't even a theory, unlike Evolution - which there is ample amounts of evidence for. Ergo, Prince cannot really posess the 'truth' if he's wrong on just this simple matter, get me?

Because even with the idea of evolving, if there is a design, there is a designer.

Carman (The Preacher) has a great song called, "There is a God." At the opening the song list so many scientific reasons for the unbeliever, you should listen to it.

At some point, when life is so miraculous, you have no other choice but to believe that life was created.

The workings of the human eye.
A butterfly that wraps itself in a silken cacoon, completely liquifies, and then flies in one life span.
The fact that if the Earth was tilted one degree closer to the sun, we would burn, or one degree further away, we as a race would freeze.

Miracles have a Father.

Because JWs call their doctrine "the truth", thats why. Their creation myth and everything else goes under the banner.

Tame said:

No.

Backing out of thread slowly....

pald1 said:

Get your point. Yes, one who speaks about the truth should reject creationism. To my knowledge Prince hasn't openly supported creationism but creationism is a part of Jehovah's Witnesses teaching so he probably does support it.
[Edited 9/28/08 15:38pm]
[Edited 9/28/08 15:39pm]

Prince does not keep Droning on!

Excuse me, but you do understand that "intelligent design" has proven itself worthy of investigation because of what many scientists have found, and that in fact, many scientists believe that science proves nothing but "design" by a Designer, right? Now if that makes you throw stones and scream "idiocy!" as you run away and hide because you can't deal with your own fears based on what it all might mean, then that's on you. Let truth live.

peace


.
[Edited 9/28/08 19:05pm]

Dsoul said:

I love this line..."To say there is not a God, is as unlikely as a Tornado whipping through a junk yard and putting together an F-16 airplane. '

All we can do is choose to believe what makes us feel better, we will never "know", only believe.

I am not a religious person, but every day i am in awe of every little thing around me, water, flies, flowers the very breath i take and simple pleasure just going for my morning coffee.
I dont know what all this is, but i call it god.
Everyday as i look at my friends, some with big noses, some healthy, some frail, some so beautifull with their mix of asian and black, to my silly looking dog and the grass in my back yard, i can see evolution and design as the world changes every day, as all of us change to try meet the demands of the day.
[Edited 9/28/08 20:24pm]

Snap said:

Poor baby, you give me the awful impression that you've never read any of the arguments against your position, ever. Not sure where you got the "many scientists believe that science proves nothing but "design" by a Designer" line - wish you could tell me just one - but I doubt that.

However, you're refering to one of Aquinas' proofs which assumes that God himself is immune from regress (a really old 'argument' from Creationst literature). Ask yourself this, though, if you believe in a supreme designer, why not ask who designed God too?

If you're open to that question, then you've got all your work left ahead of you.

Tame said:

This line comes from Fred Hoyle and actually refers to a Boeing 747 but hey - who's nitpicking?

For this..all I can do is quote Dawkins..

"This, in a nutshell, is the Creationists favorite argument - an argument that could be made only by somebody who knows nothing about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the opposite."

Prince believes that there was an ark? And two of everything God created was on it? and everyone else died??? And water flooded the entire earth????? for 40 days and 40 nights????? I can handle that in an interpretive way but not in a literal way.

Madison88 said:

Darlin', I can't even handle it in an interpretive way...as you've probably already gathered!

pald1 said:

I hold on to the thought that if we were to know we would know. I try to think positively and most of all have a conscience (it's like our "little God" watching over us seeing everything and knowing our every thought) and leave the big stuff that's out of our hands to the inexplicable and be thankful for whatever this is we are doing here.

Tame said:

You do have a choice. That choice is to delve further to attempt to understand what we do know about these questions, instead of just stopping at the "its all to amazing, it must be designed" point. I remeber feeling the same way in my early/mid teens, and it was precisely this sense of amazement that led em to want to learn more about how such "miracles" might have occured.

to see how these "miracles" can be explained all you have to do is flip your logic on its head:

There are apporxomately a billion billion planets in the universe, with more being found all the time. Woulnd't it be more remarkable if not one of them was the appropriate distance from it's sun to support life? Also, what do you make of all those other planets that don't support life? Are they godless? Were they God's experiments in getting in right until he finally nailed it with the earth? If so, he's a pretty lousy designer if it took him a billion billion times to get it right.

The workings of the human eye can be, and has been, explained and proven by evolution. In addition, the human eye is extraordinarily flawed, with objects placed at certain points directly in front it it unable to be seen due to blindspots etc. Again, if it was designed, the designer is not a very good one. Certainly not one who could lay claim to the vast intelligence any "god" must have.

Once you understand the depths of what we know, as opposed to believe, you can go beyond the mental wall of "too complex, no idea how it happened, must be god" I would encourage you to read up on it since it really is enlightening.

Tame said:

Ditto what Dsoul said. Chance is not the proper alternative to design: natural selection is.

If you're not sure what this means, I hope you'll want to find out...

razor said:

Yeah where do they get that "Human eye" defence from? It's almost as ludicrous as the guy on youtube who says the banana proves ID creation.

Could at least use the example of an eagle's eye (sharp and peripheral) because the human's isn't up there with the best eyes even. I'm sat here short sighted with glasses on because god designed mine incorrectly.

Dsoul said:

razor said:

A planet supports it's own molecular structure...If Jupiter is high winds of gases, that planet supports it's design.

If Saturns rings are frozen fragments, that was the rings design.

Any one thing can be looked at in comparison to another and say that it is less of a higher concept than something else, however all things existing and responding to one another as this thing or that thing is an observable relationship.

My point is, if your reference point is to point to one thing and try to eliminate it as reasonable clarification, you have not stood at all points simultaneously.

razor said:

You are saying that u agree with Dsoul's perspective, that the Universe was not intelligently designed by a creator. I whole heartedly disagree with you. Life coming out of nowhere was most certainly designed to happen.

pald1 said:

Thanks 4 revealing the author of that quote.

Tame said:

No, I am saying that Dsoul is right to point out that chance is not the correct alternative to design.

As for your "most certainly" line, you can no more say that, than I can say that it most certainly wasn't. We simply do not know what caused the origin of the universe, we all can only guess. What we can say is that evolution is a fact. Whether you believe this is part of God's plan or irrelevant of God is open to your own belief. What is certain is that people did not just "appear" as per the creation story, rather they evolved over time...