Forgive my ignorance...

[Pete Harcoff]

And though it really isn't true or proven you accept it because you NEED it for evolution to have some possible credence.

Multiple lines of independent evidence point to the same conclusion (~4.5 billion year old Earth/solar system). Short of a time machine, you couldn't ask for anything else.

 

[Loudmouth]

Short of a time machine, you couldn't ask for anything else.

Except, perhaps, a 2,000 year old religious text claimed to have been inspired by a supernatural deity?

 

[Inan3]

Except, perhaps, a 2,000 year old religious text claimed to have been inspired by a supernatural deity?

You know I have nothing to lose in my faith. But you, unfortunately, will have eternity to lose. I would make sure I checked it out with God before I concluded on the matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know I have nothing to lose in my faith.

You do if you come before Vishnu in the afterlife.

Pascal's Wager is a very poor argument for believing in God.

But you, unfortunately, will have eternity to lose.

I am guaranteed this lifetime and I have chosen to live it as I want.

Is this the only arument you have against science? Threats of eternal suffering in hellfire? Perhaps you can start to clue in on why I do not want creationism in science class?

 

[Inan3]

You do if you come before Vishnu in the afterlife.

Pascal's Wager is a very poor argument for believing in God.



I am guaranteed this lifetime and I have chosen to live it as I want.

Is this the only arument you have against science? Threats of eternal suffering in hellfire? Perhaps you can start to clue in on why I do not want creationism in science class?

Knowing what I believe could you ever think maybe I am sincerely concerned?

 

[RecentConvert]

Knowing what I believe could you ever think maybe I am sincerely concerned?

Your recalcitrant attitude suggests that you're not.

Remember, you're speaking to evidence seekers and not mind readers. If you truly want people to think you're concerned over them then start acting like you are...

 

[Inan3]

Your recalcitrant attitude suggests that you're not.

Remember, you're speaking to evidence seekers and not mind readers. If you truly want people to think you're concerned over them then start acting like you are...

You mean by agreeing with EVERYTHING you say?

Nay, nay, me thinks not! It's better to have friend that will hurt you than an enemy who will kiss you.

 

[Inan3]

Your recalcitrant attitude suggests that you're not.

Remember, you're speaking to evidence seekers and not mind readers. If you truly want people to think you're concerned over them then start acting like you are...

Please forgive me because I had to go and look up "recalcitrant". It was the "word of the day" on April 8, 2002 by the way. See below.

recalcitrant \rih-KAL-sih-truhnt\, adjective:
Stubbornly resistant to and defiant of authority or restraint.

You mistake my differing viewpoint as stubborness and while I respect some of you, I do not see anyone of you as my authority.

 

[RecentConvert]

Please forgive me because I had to go and look up "recalcitrant". It was the "word of the day" on April 8, 2002 by the way. See below.

recalcitrant \rih-KAL-sih-truhnt\, adjective:
Stubbornly resistant to and defiant of authority or restraint.

You mistake my differing viewpoint as stubborness and while I respect some of you, I do not see anyone of you as my authority.

Again, you're being disingenuous. You're following the exact pattern of behaviour that people complain about creationists. Is it really so hard to be honest?

re·cal·ci·trant

1: obstinately defiant of authority or restraint
2 a: difficult to manage or operate b: not responsive to treatment c: resistant

The emphasis is mine.

You pick the meaning that would most state your case and respond to that instead of picking the meaning(s) that I would most likely be using and, hence, facilitate communication.

It's obvious that you're not interested in communicating and, thus, have no interesting in saving anybody. You're here out of your own selfish ego and Jesus is disappointed in you...

 

[USincognito]

You know I have nothing to lose in my faith. But you, unfortunately, will have eternity to lose. I would make sure I checked it out with God before I concluded on the matter.

What does this have to do with the fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

Ever heard of the phrase Gish Gallop?

 

[Inan3]

Again, you're being disingenuous. You're following the exact pattern of behaviour that people complain about creationists. Is it really so hard to be honest?
1 : obstinately defiant of authority or restraint
2 a : difficult to manage or operate
The emphasis is mine.

You pick the meaning that would most state your case and respond to that instead of picking the meaning(s) that I would most likely be using and, hence, facilitate communication.

It's obvious that you're not interested in communicating and, thus, have no interesting in saving anybody. You're here out of your own selfish ego and Jesus is disappointed in you...

First I am recalcitrant and now I am disingenuous and dishonest. While I could be offended by both of these slams I will forgo them for the sake of civility. For your sake I will explain that I just picked the first meaning that came up in my Google search. You intimidate that I had another motive but I did not. The definition you chose really has the same meaning. I did find YOUR emphasis to be rather telling, though, because it seems that you think I should be be submissive to your restraint and allow myself to be managed. This seems incredulous to me that anyone would want that in another individual. I do see why you would use such demeaning language as above, if it is your intent to dictate your opinions over mine. I would suggest that, that is not necessary nor is beneficial to the discussion.

And last but not least, if your suggestion that I am unwilling to communicate and not interested in saving anyone and that Jesus is disappointed in me was a ploy of some kind to manipulate me into submission through guilt then I want you to know it had the opposite effect. I am now more wary than ever of you intentions and motivations.

Talk about "following the exact pattern of behaviour that people complain about". This is classic anti-creationist tactics. So tiring and so sad.

 

[RecentConvert]

First I am recalcitrant and now I am disingenuous and dishonest. While I could be offended by both of these slams I will forgo them for the sake of civility. For your sake I will explain that I just picked the first meaning that came up in my Google search. You intimidate that I had another motive but I did not. The definition you chose really has the same meaning. I did find YOUR emphasis to be rather telling, though, because it seems that you think I should be be submissive to your restraint and allow myself to be managed. This seems incredulous to me that anyone would want that in another individual. I do see why you would use such demeaning language as above, if it is your intent to dictate your opinions over mine. I would suggest that, that is not necessary nor is beneficial to the discussion.

I was thinking more along the lines of self restraint... and my descriptions of you are not meant to be "slams." I was hoping you can see your own actions for what they are.

And last but not least, if your suggestion that I am unwilling to communicate and not interested in saving anyone and that Jesus is disappointed in me was a ploy of some kind to manipulate me into submission through guilt then I want you to know it had the opposite effect. I am now more wary than ever of you intentions and motivations.

My "suggestions" are meant to tell you what you are doing. If your goal is to communicate or save anyone, you've failed terribly. If you don't care about this, one wonders why you're even here...

Talk about "following the exact pattern of behaviour that people complain about". This is classic anti-creationist tactics. So tiring and so sad.

I agree, this is tiring and sad...

 

[tanzanos]

About the time that the rest of science started to disprove the biblical myths. It would be folly for a creationist to admit that he was attacking all of science. So "evolution" has become the codeword for any science that challenges or disproves biblical myth.

There are two ways to explain why the world is the way it is: Myth and science. Those holding the mythic world view are "conservative", which is to say, they cannot easily process new information. They do not handle change well. Note that not all conservatives are politically conservative, nor financially conservative, nor socially conservative. A conservative thinker is one who finds it difficult or impossible to change their mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They are not intellectually adaptable. They are mentally stagnant.

Those holding the scientific view are adaptable, and not so sure of their beliefs. Their minds remain malleable longer, unlike the mythic thinkers whose minds tend to set like concrete at, or even before, puberty.

There are some creationists who are still capable of scientific thought. Exposed to the evidence, they become ex-creationists, or theistic creationists.

I am a bit of a conservative myself in some matters. Still, if some Christian would care to demonstrate to me that it is possible to serve both God and money, I might be constrained to change my mind.

What more can one say? Bravo, well put, couldn't have said it better myself!
AMEN

 

[Loudmouth]

Knowing what I believe could you ever think maybe I am sincerely concerned?

I know that you are concerned. The problem is that threats of eternal hellfire do not impress me just like coal in your stockings is not a worthwhile threat for acting naughty or nice.

 

[Split Rock]

You know I have nothing to lose in my faith. But you, unfortunately, will have eternity to lose. I would make sure I checked it out with God before I concluded on the matter.

The Final Creationist Tactic:

THE BIG STICK!

 

[Inan3]

I was thinking more along the lines of self restraint... and my descriptions of you are not meant to be "slams." I was hoping you can see your own actions for what they are.

My "suggestions" are meant to tell you what you are doing. If your goal is to communicate or save anyone, you've failed terribly. If you don't care about this, one wonders why you're even here...

I agree, this is tiring and sad...

I know you don't believe the Bible but perhaps you should follow this one scripture. Take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of someone else's.

Another thing, I realize I cannot "save" anyone on this thread nor do I try to. You cannot help someone who doesn't WANT help. I can only tell you what the scriptures say. It is up to the Holy Spirit to make it real to you and He knows the willing heart and the one that is NOT willing. We don't get any special badges for converts. We just tell people and let them decide for themselves. If anyone has a "true" desire to know the truth, God will get it to them. He knows who's playing games and who's serious. There will not be anyone in Hell who did not go there on their own accord. They have to step right over the cross of Jesus to get there. God has done all that is needed for men to be saved. They must believe to receive it. There will be no blaming God or Christians or creationists in that day. There will be no excuse. Everyone there will have made the choice to be there.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know you don't believe the Bible but perhaps you should follow this one scripture. Take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of someone else's.

This is quite ironic coming from a creationist. You claim that evolution is a religion even though it is supported by mountains of data. You claim that the theory is full of holes, and yet all you can give us is misrepresentations and even outright lies. You claim that creationism is true, and yet you are incapable of supplying one iota of evidence in support. I can make an appointment for you with my optometrist if you would like.