whoops, make that 4 catogories
4) quoting bible verses and molding them to observations or opinions.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Honest Question
- Thread starter GuidanceNeeded
- Start date
whoops, make that 4 catogories
4) quoting bible verses and molding them to observations or opinions.
razzelflabben
Contributor
the same is said by many of the evolutionists in this world. Labels unfortunately don't tell us who is right and who is wrong, or even if there is a third choice.
How does a belief in Creation/ID equal ravaging the earth....in fact, in Gen. man is instructed by God to care for the earth. This would be a command taken literally by the creationist that looks literally at Gen.
it seems you have a gross misunderstanding of creation/ID and the people who believe our world to have been created.
religion is different than belief, but makes me wonder why you would bring up your views of religion at all?
Your venom seems misplaced.
Upvote
0
the same is said by many of the evolutionists in this world. Labels unfortunately don't tell us who is right and who is wrong, or even if there is a third choice.
"]the same is said by many of the evolutionists in this world. Labels unfortunately don't tell us who is right and who is wrong, or even if there is a third choice"
we have evidence to back up or claims and we have a model that makes predictions that work.
what do you have?
"
How does a belief in Creation/ID equal ravaging the earth....in fact, in Gen. man is instructed by God to care for the earth. This would be a command taken literally by the creationist that looks literally at Gen. "-_-
it's here for our sole purpose, ant it will be gone quite soon (most creos will probably also take revelations literally)
sooo why think ahead 10 000 years, if it's gonna be gone within a few 10s or 100s?
"it seems you have a gross misunderstanding of creation/ID and the people who believe our world to have been created. "
from what i've seen. it doesn't seem unlikely that these people will trow a bomb or two on those who "defile" their religion. look at extremist muslims. most of em are creationists too.
but it's more the mentality that these people tend to ahve agains science.
or to put it in Ben Steins idiotic words"
"faith leads you to a better place, science leads you to killing people"
and als, if these people tend to be ignorant enough to buy creationist argument, they tend to be ignorant enough to buy...lets say "they got WMD's!" claims out of hand.
"religion is different than belief, but makes me wonder why you would bring up your views of religion at all? "
because you practice your beliefs in religion. if there wouldn't be creo's lobbying for teachign creationism as science, i wouldn't be whining.
if there would be people claimign divine inspiration in spousign the message "god hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" i would be whining.
if people would buy into faith healing and sink into misery and dept, i wouldn't whine.
but they do.
and it's not just because of their beliefs, its because of the way you practice (and spread them).
and the OP question was, "why you i care"
because people tend to spread such beliefs.
"Your venom seems misplaced."
i bite when people spread it, not when they keep it to themselves.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
they claim the same for evolution, only problem is, casting such judgments doesn't answer the question you are responding to.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
Me or creationist? They claim the same, evidence....that is the problem with your argument, it relies on name calling and unverifiable conclusions, so that you can hope to belittle the opposition and in doing so, gain ground for your own opinions and biases.
well, from a literalist standpoint, because it is God's command, God's word as given in the bible specifically the very same Gen. where the story of creation is taken from."
-_-
it's here for our sole purpose, ant it will be gone quite soon (most creos will probably also take revelations literally)
sooo why think ahead 10 000 years, if it's gonna be gone within a few 10s or 100s?
actually, a great many of the creationist/idists I know and have run into, love science, so again, it seems you have a gross misunderstanding.
It appears you are mischaracterizing people so you can justify your own prejudice.[/quote]
"religion is different than belief, but makes me wonder why you would bring up your views of religion at all? "
because you practice your beliefs in religion. [/quote] true belief is practised everyday of your life, in every way, not just in religion. Even you are living out your beliefs right here in a friendly discussion about the origins of life.
they say the same of evolutionists.
more mischaracterizations, I wonder what fringe group you have come into contact with that makes you so hateful?
So you believe people should not talk about things they believe, so that people who agree with you can have all the vocal? That is pretty lopsided, like some of the governments (I will not mention) who refused to allow any opposing words to enter into their nations, for fear, that someone might listen...There are many different viewpoints in this world, some agree with you, others oppose it, all have value, just as all people have value. You may think you are judge and jury, you may think you are god, of superior knowledge and understanding, but in the end, you are just a human being like the rest of us, our ideas and beliefs are as valid as yours. Our knowledge and understanding as viable as yours. Finding truth in the midst of all the voices in this world, is a quest that every wise human being will venture to go on.
Upvote
0
problem is for them, when you actually examine the claim (start reading the articles) you see that they lied.
do you ever wonder why science has held on to ToE?
because after all that research it still works.
oh ya, and this wasn't really an answer to the question, it was more a reply to his conclusion.
Upvote
0
"religion is different than belief, but makes me wonder why you would bring up your views of religion at all? "
because you practice your beliefs in religion. [/quote] true belief is practised everyday of your life, in every way, not just in religion. Even you are living out your beliefs right here in a friendly discussion about the origins of life. they say the same of evolutionists. more mischaracterizations, I wonder what fringe group you have come into contact with that makes you so hateful? So you believe people should not talk about things they believe, so that people who agree with you can have all the vocal? That is pretty lopsided, like some of the governments (I will not mention) who refused to allow any opposing words to enter into their nations, for fear, that someone might listen...There are many different viewpoints in this world, some agree with you, others oppose it, all have value, just as all people have value. You may think you are judge and jury, you may think you are god, of superior knowledge and understanding, but in the end, you are just a human being like the rest of us, our ideas and beliefs are as valid as yours. Our knowledge and understanding as viable as yours. Finding truth in the midst of all the voices in this world, is a quest that every wise human being will venture to go on.[/quote]
"Me or creationist?"
creationists.
"They claim the same, evidence....that is the problem with your argument,"
no they do not.
if you say a flood explains strata layers. you're lying. because the strata layers do not fit the the prediction made my that claim.
they aren't all one big hydraulically sorted layer.
this kind of approach ca be done to most of the "similar evidence" they claim.
't relies on name calling "
no not even the slightest. although i do tend to add in some insults when the rest of the argument has justified them.
like responding to "all mutations are bad"
with
"nylonaise you ignorant ****"
"and unverifiable conclusions,"
no, if they were they wouldn't be science.
and don't even try "evolution is unfalsibiable"
PRECAMBRIAM BUNNIES.
"so that you can hope to belittle the opposition and in doing so, gain ground for your own opinions and biases. "
if you're (creationists) ignorant and stupid enough to think i fall for half baked reasoning, half truths and lies, i call you out on it, and hard.
"well, from a literalist standpoint,"
what other reason do you have to accept genesis as factual?
or what other reason then a literal holy text do you have to believe a god made all of this?
"actually, a great many of the creationist/idists I know and have run into, love science, so again, it seems you have a gross misunderstanding."
love science ay? the benefits or the actual method and it's intellectual rewards?
because if they loved the latte,r they would be trying to push creation "science", i'll take Hovind as a good example of why some creationists obviously do NOT love science. or better yet, look at AV or Dad.
"It appears you are mischaracterizing people so you can justify your own prejudice."
i said probably. i never took a hardcore "they do".
is i and a bible literalist see a yet unexplained phenomena,
who's more likely to attribute it to magic (god)?
"true belief is practised everyday of your life, in every way, not just in religion. Even you are living out your beliefs right here in a friendly discussion about the origins of life."
here we get into the semantics again.
my "belief" isn't the same as a "belief" in god.
EG: my belief requires evidence and critical thinking based conclusions. belief in god, needs not.
"they say the same of evolutionists. "
difference is we don't do it in the name of some (possibly) nonexistant being.
ToE IS real and it DOES explain reality. eg: it WORKS.
"more mischaracterizations, I wonder what fringe group you have come into contact with that makes you so hateful? "
im not over generalizing you. i actually AIM for those fringe groups.
and creationist ARE a fringe group imo, and to the scientific community.
if you got rid of religion, these people lose all their justificationa dn woul have to start to THINK what their real justification is.
"So you believe people should not talk about things they believe, so that people who agree with you can have all the vocal? That is pretty lopsided"
noooooo. i think if you're gonna claim i should believe somehting and you fail to back it up enough, and i call you on it. you should whine.
i also think that if you state that you have such a belief and you give your justification and i call you on the (to me) apparent lack thereof, you also shouldn't whine.
"There are many different viewpoints in this world, some agree with you, others oppose it, all have value, just as all people have value."
yup, and arguments stand on their merit.
if they have non, i will say so.
" You may think you are judge and jury"
in deciding the value of evidence, they are the same thing.
and i DO believe you are also your own judge of evidence?
" you may think you are god, of superior knowledge and understanding,"
HAHAHA...only a deulsional fool would claim so.
wierdly enoguh people who do alwys seem to be grasping a book they claim to have gotten it out of...wierd...
"but in the end, you are just a human being like the rest of us,"
and that's why i want to see us all workign together to further the knowledge of mankind.
and that's why i an so vacal about creationism and ID.
"our ideas and beliefs are as valid as yours."
valid, yes. correct. no.
the value of your position is only as strong as the evidecne you ahve to bakc it up.
" Our knowledge and understanding as viable as yours."
noooo, my knowledge of mollusks is less then someone who spent, say, 5 years studying them
experts are called experts for a reason.
ignorance doesn't equip you to arguing something. i see this way to often in creationists.
" Finding truth in the midst of all the voices in this world, is a quest that every wise human being will venture to go on."
you and i and everone else is on that quest right now, the differenc is where we say "ok i'll buy that".
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
some do, just like some evolutionists lie, others don't, just like some of the evolutionists. That is why conclusions have to be based on evidence not claims made if we hope to find truth.
actually, there are many scientists who believe in creation, and the really amazing thing is that in most of the cases, the science supports both the ToE and Creation.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
true belief is practised everyday of your life, in every way, not just in religion. Even you are living out your beliefs right here in a friendly discussion about the origins of life. they say the same of evolutionists. more mischaracterizations, I wonder what fringe group you have come into contact with that makes you so hateful? So you believe people should not talk about things they believe, so that people who agree with you can have all the vocal? That is pretty lopsided, like some of the governments (I will not mention) who refused to allow any opposing words to enter into their nations, for fear, that someone might listen...There are many different viewpoints in this world, some agree with you, others oppose it, all have value, just as all people have value. You may think you are judge and jury, you may think you are god, of superior knowledge and understanding, but in the end, you are just a human being like the rest of us, our ideas and beliefs are as valid as yours. Our knowledge and understanding as viable as yours. Finding truth in the midst of all the voices in this world, is a quest that every wise human being will venture to go on.[/quote]
"Me or creationist?"
creationists.
"They claim the same, evidence....that is the problem with your argument,"
no they do not.
if you say a flood explains strata layers. you're lying. because the strata layers do not fit the the prediction made my that claim.
they aren't all one big hydraulically sorted layer.[/quote] now your shifting to flood theory, so I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you believe that only two beliefs exist, ToE and YEC, and nothing in between. Got news for you, you can include in this list the most prominent beliefs, theistic evolution, creation (not young earth), and pure ID, I think that about covers the most common beliefs. Interesting that those who are so hateful to others usually only see the two groups that you do, I wonder if that is because you think they are the easiest to "prove wrong"?
you read into posts way to much, why not just stick with what is being said and let people show what camp they are in with their posts instead of the prejudice you unleash without knowing what they believe first?
I think that is exactly what you are acting like, but as to who you really are, I have no idea, I can't get past the hatred long enough to know. As to calling me out on it, I'm afraid that quoting science would not prove you are reasoning and logical, so it would do no good, all you want to do is belittle and prove to be something you are not. If you want to present yourself as logical and reasoning, start by cutting the prejudice insults and false assumptions and actually try some reason and logic in your responses. So I guess, I'm calling you out to show your logic, respond logically, without prejudice and let's see if you can in fact, respond rationally.
The bible is literature. Therefore, it has different genra to present to the reader, for example, Psalms is a book of songs or poems as it were. So when we look at Gen, we see that it is not written like a scientific treatise, but rather like a polimic. Therefore the reader has several options among them being, a literal scientic treatise, a polimic, a fictition story, even, a parable or analogy...therefore, there can be many different "creation" beliefs all based on the very same text. The only correct one of course being the interpretation consistant with the style the text was written in.
both
some don't, but my comment was not that all did, now was it? Shall I quote myself for you? "actually, a great many of the creationist/idists I know and have run into, love science" Notice my words a great many, thus not even close to the above assertions that all.
depends on the bible literalist, which is the point. Some literalists would jump at the chance to discover the origins of the unexplained phenomema through science. In fact, my own personal beliefs in God are based largely on the evidence collected over the years. Testables.
so do most of the believers I know, requiring evidence is a good thing, and quite honestly is a huge biblical teaching. so again you show your ignorance of those who believe in the bible.
Now does it allow science to evidence God, so seems pretty even to me...
then you would be totally missing the hugest population of people who believe you to be wrong.
actually, I would love to get rid of religion as defined by the world (the bible definition is actually a good compassionate thing to have) Because what you would be left with is people who actual live what they believe, but that is a totally different topic and one best left for a different thread.
I'm guessing you mean shouldn't whine....first, who is asking you to believe anything? Second, who isn't backing it up with something?
see above
you show yourself to say there are no merits even if there are, so I don't put much confidence in your words at this point, but you might be a closet rational thinking, time will tell..
of your own ideas sure, of the rest of the worlds, not even close.
this sounds like the claim you are making, does that mean you are admitting to being a "delusional fool"?
which is why you need to first educate yourself on what people believe about creation and ID
well for starters you don't know my position so how can you judge whether it is right or wrong? Yep, you were caught in a trap and you are not caught...you judge without knowledge.
I see it way to often in both creationists and evolutionists, and honestly you showed it in proclaiming me to be wrong without even knowing what I believe on the topic.
We don't buy anything, we consider the evidence, look for viable conclusions, and that is what we believe. We shouldn't have to be convinced by others selling snake oil, or told what to believe in order to find truth...the man/woman/child who uses logic and reasoning can find truth without being told what truth is...which appears to be our biggest difference, I believe in logic and reason, you believe in what you have been convinced to believe.
Upvote
0
"some do, just like some evolutionists lie, others don't, just like some of the evolutionists."
show me one peer reviewed article that supports ToE that is factually incorrect.
"That is why conclusions have to be based on evidence not claims made if we hope to find truth. "
irony meter went through the roof here.
"actually, there are many scientists who believe in creation"
show me one publishing biologist who believes in creationism.
and tell me how the you think the ratio is.
"the science supports both the ToE and Creation. "
well it doesn't support a 6000 year old earth and a global flood.
i mean...srly have you even looked at most of the argument creationists put forth?
estimates of moondust thickness from 1960s!?
sea salt concentrations increases while ignoring all the processes that lower the concentrations?
saying the various chalk layers, of hundreds of metres deep, could have formed in a few years?
a flood that somehow doesn't kill of all corals, or other fragile marine life?
vapor canapoy?
geothermal water eruptions that FREEZE the earth?!
hyper evolution?
saying the fossil record is due to sorting of BUOYANCY and INTELLECT!?
are you familiar with these creationist arguments?
have you even heard what people like Kent Hovind spew?
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
when talking only of peer review, the problem isn't usually the facts, but the conclusions...for example, the viable conclusions are based on logic, however one cannot have a logical conclusion without first having a premise. When the premise changes, so do the logical conclusions.
you don't even know what I believe, where I stand and yet you claim this to be irony, your are not flattering yourself.
there are many and a quick web search reveals them, as to the ratio, the ratio has nothing to do with truth, only popular opinion. Of which the previous post spoke to you about the difference between logical rational conclusions and being convinced of something.
That is one group, as stated previously, there are a host of other creation/Id that don't believe the earth to be 6000 years old and many who do not believe the flood was global while others show through evidence a global flood. But what really confuses me is why everyone thinks that the flood is part of creation, actually, according to the text, the flood was quite a while after the creation of life, which means it is not part of the creation theory at all.
so you wish to show your ignorance of creation/ID by showing your "intelligence" of an external theory not related to creation??? interesting tactic...
yes, and honestly I know a host of creationist/IDists who do not support a young earth, do you know enough about the discussion to know of these people?
not really, I don't listen much, I have heard through others, but that isn't the point, if you want to argue with Kent Hovind, argue with him, or one of his followers, but don't lump them all together with all beliefs that are not yours...
Upvote
0
" you read into posts way to much, why not just stick with what is being said and let people show what camp they are in with their posts instead of the prejudice you unleash without knowing what they believe first?"
did you even read of what you accused me? or what you accues my camp of doing?
ad hominems.
when in fact we tend to insult when we have justified those reasons.
and i wasn't insultign you, i was showing how i insult people who actually adhere to that form of creationism, while being so bloody ignorant not to see what kind of lies they've been fed.
"I think that is exactly what you are acting like, but as to who you really are, I have no idea, I can't get past the hatred long enough to know."
you believe THIS is hatred?
wow you have no idea.
you want hatred, listen to those fringe elements of Christianity.
and if you buy into stupid creationist argument is WILL call you ignorant, after i demonstrated why.
"As to calling me out on it, I'm afraid that quoting science would not prove you are reasoning and logical, so it would do no good,"
HAHAHA you actually consider me uneducated enough to quote mine or not read what i quote? i tend to back up my claims with refrenced evidence.
"all you want to do is belittle and prove to be something you are not. "
i AM studying Life Sciences and technology at a university, LS&T is a scientific study. and if you're doign a scientific study you better know your science.
oh and i only belittle those who deserve it. and people who buy "all mutations are detrimental", deserve it. (no i am not specifically referring to you)
"If you want to present yourself as logical and reasoning, start by cutting the prejudice insults and false assumptions and actually try some reason and logic in your responses."
im not even really takign you on in a discussion, im merely trying to explain my usual conduct with creationist AND WHY it is so.
"without prejudice and let's see if you can in fact, respond rationally. "
i haven't even ASKED what your side on this is, (although i have a good idea) im still trying to explain that my distaste from most creationists is founded on just reasons., instead of you steadfast claiming it's "evolutionist prejudace" i haven't even started a discussion.
"The bible is literature. Therefore, it has different genra to present to the reader, for example, Psalms is a book of songs or poems as it were. So when we look at Gen, we see that it is not written like a scientific treatise, but rather like a polimic. Therefore the reader has several options among them being, a literal scientic treatise, a polimic, a fictition story, even, a parable or analogy...therefore, there can be many different "creation" beliefs all based on the very same text. The only correct one of course being the interpretation consistant with the style the text was written in."
wow., hold on a sec
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West).
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material
which definition literature are you referrign to?
because a scientific article isn't comparable to a novel.
"Therefore the reader has several options among them being, a literal scientic treatise"
no that is not an option, since it's not written like one. you said so yourself. So when we look at Gen, we see that it is not written like a scientific treatise
".therefore, there can be many different "creation" beliefs all based on the very same text."
aah this semeantics part.
ok i was referrign to "creationism" which you would probably understand cuoloqually as "genesis (or any other holy text actually) interpreted (YEC, OEC, DAY)
any form where a yaweh directly made everythign in existance in 6000 years or more, with no natural explinations allowed.
so no BBT, abiogenesis or ToE.
ofc you can argue that god could ahve made the first livign cell and let it allevolve from there, and then you could call it a kind of "creationism" and some of my criticizms might also be applicable to those forms, but they aren't what i am referrign too.
"both "
then they do not like the method.
ID'rs not because they've been tryign to change it's very definition, and creationists not because they've been tryign to push a religious dogma as "science". im sorry. but your friends do not love the method or the way it works. that is...if they've been trying to say ID and "creation science" are legitimate science.
"In fact, my own personal beliefs in God are based largely on the evidence collected over the years. Testables. "
ooh that makes me curious..
do you believe god is purely supernatural?
and please give your "testables".
"and quite honestly is a huge biblical teaching. so again you show your ignorance of those who believe in the bible. "
so no matter how badly the geographical strata show that a global flood never happened, it did still happen?
not onyl that, 3rd or 2nd hand testemonial evidence forma 1700 year old cencsored compilation (if we're taking purely the bible) isn't that meritable evidence.
"Now does it allow science to evidence God, so seems pretty even to me..."
??since when can we test for god.
btw, "god did it" explains NOTHING.
it;s merely renaming the unknown, since it doesn't say how god did it.
arguable you can say "god did it, and he used evolution".
in whcih case you do explain how he did it, but you wouldn't need to ditch ToE.
"then you would be totally missing the hugest population of people who believe you to be wrong. "
great. now let those people give me their arguments.
and they better not pull out those old stale once that have been debunked years ago.
"Because what you would be left with is people who actual live what they believe, but that is a totally different topic and one best left for a different thread."
agreed.
"I'm guessing you mean shouldn't whine."
whoops yes.
tnx for the correction.
"first, who is asking you to believe anything?"
ehm...those ppl like Hovind, ken Ham, texas school bord, evangelicals. allthose people who say im "wrong" and need to ditch ToE and science and convert."
ever heard of VenomfangX? geerup? Ray Comfort?
"Second, who isn't backing it up with something? "
people who say "goddidit that porves he exists" and think they actually provided an answer.
or all those people that fall for the entire circualr reasonign bit with "the bible is the infallable word of god, because it sais so in the bible" part.
or...well...you look around in the physics section and you'll see what i mean.
"see above "
what do you believe and why?
is that such a bad question to ask?
and is it such a horrible thing to do to call them out when you think they're mistaken on somehting...like when someone says "all mutations are detrimental! therefore...and...so god exists and ToE is false".
"you show yourself to say there are no merits even if there are, "
again. are you familiar with most of the arguments creationists use to back up their claims?
"of your own ideas sure, of the rest of the worlds, not even close. "
so..you DOn'T evaluate arguments yourself?
"this sounds like the claim you are making, "
sound like. but i never did. did i claim to know exaclt how the univers was formed? (for a start).
and if calling BS on flawed creationist claim makes me delusional in your eyes. so be it.
"which is why you need to first educate yourself on what people believe about creation and ID "
i've actually done quite a bit on that. and i've seen quite soem points of view.
so far my examples have been aimed at the most hardcore versions. but you probably noticed that already.
"well for starters you don't know my position so how can you judge whether it is right or wrong?"
see fruther bakc in the reply
"Yep, you were caught in a trap and you are not caught...you judge without knowledge. " don't call em hasty when i haven't even entered the forest yet.
"I see it way to often in both creationists and evolutionists, and honestly you showed it in proclaiming me to be wrong without even knowing what I believe on the topic."
AGAIN, see further back.
"you believe in what you have been convinced to believe."
i think, since you jumped to the conlcusion that i ws already adressing your views, that we're gonna come back on that later in our discussion.
you read into posts way to much, why not just stick with what is being said and let people show what camp they are in with their posts instead of the prejudice you unleash without knowing what they believe first?"did you even read of what you accused me? or what you accues my camp of doing?
ad hominems.
when in fact we tend to insult when we have justified those reasons.
and i wasn't insultign you, i was showing how i insult people who actually adhere to that form of creationism, while being so bloody ignorant not to see what kind of lies they've been fed.
"I think that is exactly what you are acting like, but as to who you really are, I have no idea, I can't get past the hatred long enough to know."
you believe THIS is hatred?
wow you have no idea.
you want hatred, listen to those fringe elements of Christianity.
and if you buy into stupid creationist argument is WILL call you ignorant, after i demonstrated why.
"As to calling me out on it, I'm afraid that quoting science would not prove you are reasoning and logical, so it would do no good,"
HAHAHA you actually consider me uneducated enough to quote mine or not read what i quote? i tend to back up my claims with refrenced evidence.
"all you want to do is belittle and prove to be something you are not. "
i AM studying Life Sciences and technology at a university, LS&T is a scientific study. and if you're doign a scientific study you better know your science.
oh and i only belittle those who deserve it. and people who buy "all mutations are detrimental", deserve it. (no i am not specifically referring to you)
"If you want to present yourself as logical and reasoning, start by cutting the prejudice insults and false assumptions and actually try some reason and logic in your responses."
im not even really takign you on in a discussion, im merely trying to explain my usual conduct with creationist AND WHY it is so.
"without prejudice and let's see if you can in fact, respond rationally. "
i haven't even ASKED what your side on this is, (although i have a good idea) im still trying to explain that my distaste from most creationists is founded on just reasons., instead of you steadfast claiming it's "evolutionist prejudace" i haven't even started a discussion.
"The bible is literature. Therefore, it has different genra to present to the reader, for example, Psalms is a book of songs or poems as it were. So when we look at Gen, we see that it is not written like a scientific treatise, but rather like a polimic. Therefore the reader has several options among them being, a literal scientic treatise, a polimic, a fictition story, even, a parable or analogy...therefore, there can be many different "creation" beliefs all based on the very same text. The only correct one of course being the interpretation consistant with the style the text was written in."
wow., hold on a sec
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West).
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material
which definition literature are you referrign to?
because a scientific article isn't comparable to a novel.
"Therefore the reader has several options among them being, a literal scientic treatise"
no that is not an option, since it's not written like one. you said so yourself. So when we look at Gen, we see that it is not written like a scientific treatise
".therefore, there can be many different "creation" beliefs all based on the very same text."
aah this semeantics part.
ok i was referrign to "creationism" which you would probably understand cuoloqually as "genesis (or any other holy text actually) interpreted (YEC, OEC, DAY)
any form where a yaweh directly made everythign in existance in 6000 years or more, with no natural explinations allowed.
so no BBT, abiogenesis or ToE.
ofc you can argue that god could ahve made the first livign cell and let it allevolve from there, and then you could call it a kind of "creationism" and some of my criticizms might also be applicable to those forms, but they aren't what i am referrign too.
"both "
then they do not like the method.
ID'rs not because they've been tryign to change it's very definition, and creationists not because they've been tryign to push a religious dogma as "science". im sorry. but your friends do not love the method or the way it works. that is...if they've been trying to say ID and "creation science" are legitimate science.
"In fact, my own personal beliefs in God are based largely on the evidence collected over the years. Testables. "
ooh that makes me curious..
do you believe god is purely supernatural?
and please give your "testables".
"and quite honestly is a huge biblical teaching. so again you show your ignorance of those who believe in the bible. "
so no matter how badly the geographical strata show that a global flood never happened, it did still happen?
not onyl that, 3rd or 2nd hand testemonial evidence forma 1700 year old cencsored compilation (if we're taking purely the bible) isn't that meritable evidence.
"Now does it allow science to evidence God, so seems pretty even to me..."
??since when can we test for god.
btw, "god did it" explains NOTHING.
it;s merely renaming the unknown, since it doesn't say how god did it.
arguable you can say "god did it, and he used evolution".
in whcih case you do explain how he did it, but you wouldn't need to ditch ToE.
"then you would be totally missing the hugest population of people who believe you to be wrong. "
great. now let those people give me their arguments.
and they better not pull out those old stale once that have been debunked years ago.
"Because what you would be left with is people who actual live what they believe, but that is a totally different topic and one best left for a different thread."
agreed.
"I'm guessing you mean shouldn't whine."
whoops yes.
tnx for the correction.
"first, who is asking you to believe anything?"
ehm...those ppl like Hovind, ken Ham, texas school bord, evangelicals. allthose people who say im "wrong" and need to ditch ToE and science and convert."
ever heard of VenomfangX? geerup? Ray Comfort?
"Second, who isn't backing it up with something? "
people who say "goddidit that porves he exists" and think they actually provided an answer.
or all those people that fall for the entire circualr reasonign bit with "the bible is the infallable word of god, because it sais so in the bible" part.
or...well...you look around in the physics section and you'll see what i mean.
"see above "
what do you believe and why?
is that such a bad question to ask?
and is it such a horrible thing to do to call them out when you think they're mistaken on somehting...like when someone says "all mutations are detrimental! therefore...and...so god exists and ToE is false".
"you show yourself to say there are no merits even if there are, "
again. are you familiar with most of the arguments creationists use to back up their claims?
"of your own ideas sure, of the rest of the worlds, not even close. "
so..you DOn'T evaluate arguments yourself?
"this sounds like the claim you are making, "
sound like. but i never did. did i claim to know exaclt how the univers was formed? (for a start).
and if calling BS on flawed creationist claim makes me delusional in your eyes. so be it.
"which is why you need to first educate yourself on what people believe about creation and ID "
i've actually done quite a bit on that. and i've seen quite soem points of view.
so far my examples have been aimed at the most hardcore versions. but you probably noticed that already.
"well for starters you don't know my position so how can you judge whether it is right or wrong?"
see fruther bakc in the reply
"Yep, you were caught in a trap and you are not caught...you judge without knowledge. " don't call em hasty when i haven't even entered the forest yet.
"I see it way to often in both creationists and evolutionists, and honestly you showed it in proclaiming me to be wrong without even knowing what I believe on the topic."
AGAIN, see further back.
"you believe in what you have been convinced to believe."
i think, since you jumped to the conlcusion that i ws already adressing your views, that we're gonna come back on that later in our discussion.
Upvote
0
"when talking only of peer review, the problem isn't usually the facts, but the conclusions...for example, the viable conclusions are based on logic, however one cannot have a logical conclusion without first having a premise. When the premise changes, so do the logical conclusions."
so i;ll be taking that article that was a "lie" now?
"you don't even know what I believe, where I stand and yet you claim this to be irony, your are not flattering yourself. "
PREVIOUS post, ironically you're the one who jumped to conclusions
"there are many and a quick web search reveals them, as to the ratio, the ratio has nothing to do with truth, only popular opinion."
that is actually an insult to the scientific community btw, alhtough i agree, no appeal to authority, or numbers, but it's still an insult to incline that a scientific consensus is "popular opinion."
oh and most "creation scientists" do not publish in any respected papers, and allmost all "creation papers" do not adhere to peer review.
hence the harsh criticisms they recieve from actual scientists.
but im curious, can you give me any names?
", the flood was quite a while after the creation of life, which means it is not part of the creation theory at all. "
to a bible literalist, it had to happen too. and so it becomes part of their "creation science".
"so you wish to show your ignorance of creation/ID by showing your "intelligence" of an external theory not related to creation???"
actually, most of those coem from Hovind, a "well known creation speaker", he's currently in jail for tax fraud, but his son continues the family businus of spreading falsehoods.
" do you know enough about the discussion to know of these people? "
yup. and prime example is Behe who (re)proposed ID. however is was quickly refuted by the scientific community. on the grounds that it was "untestable" (how do you test for the designer)
and that what behe claimed where "irriducibly complex systems that could not have evolved" actually could ahve evolved.
his version of god, is one that very occasionally "tinkers" with genomes.
yet he's reputation has been horribly abused by the likes of casey luskin and the ID institute, who have turned it into a sort of "mantle" for their biblical creationism.
"not really, I don't listen much, I have heard through others, but that isn't the point, if you want to argue with Kent Hovind, argue with him, or one of his followers, but don't lump them all together with all beliefs that are not yours..."
again, the explination to that was in the previous post.
so i;ll be taking that article that was a "lie" now?
"you don't even know what I believe, where I stand and yet you claim this to be irony, your are not flattering yourself. "
PREVIOUS post, ironically you're the one who jumped to conclusions
"there are many and a quick web search reveals them, as to the ratio, the ratio has nothing to do with truth, only popular opinion."
that is actually an insult to the scientific community btw, alhtough i agree, no appeal to authority, or numbers, but it's still an insult to incline that a scientific consensus is "popular opinion."
oh and most "creation scientists" do not publish in any respected papers, and allmost all "creation papers" do not adhere to peer review.
hence the harsh criticisms they recieve from actual scientists.
but im curious, can you give me any names?
", the flood was quite a while after the creation of life, which means it is not part of the creation theory at all. "
to a bible literalist, it had to happen too. and so it becomes part of their "creation science".
"so you wish to show your ignorance of creation/ID by showing your "intelligence" of an external theory not related to creation???"
actually, most of those coem from Hovind, a "well known creation speaker", he's currently in jail for tax fraud, but his son continues the family businus of spreading falsehoods.
" do you know enough about the discussion to know of these people? "
yup. and prime example is Behe who (re)proposed ID. however is was quickly refuted by the scientific community. on the grounds that it was "untestable" (how do you test for the designer)
and that what behe claimed where "irriducibly complex systems that could not have evolved" actually could ahve evolved.
his version of god, is one that very occasionally "tinkers" with genomes.
yet he's reputation has been horribly abused by the likes of casey luskin and the ID institute, who have turned it into a sort of "mantle" for their biblical creationism.
"not really, I don't listen much, I have heard through others, but that isn't the point, if you want to argue with Kent Hovind, argue with him, or one of his followers, but don't lump them all together with all beliefs that are not yours..."
again, the explination to that was in the previous post.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
"
did you even read of what you accused me? or what you accues my camp of doing?
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
Part Two
"both "
then they do not like the method.
ID'rs not because they've been tryign to change it's very definition, and creationists not because they've been tryign to push a religious dogma as "science". im sorry. but your friends do not love the method or the way it works. that is...if they've been trying to say ID and "creation science" are legitimate science.[/quote] That is not what I said, now is it? See this is what I am talking about... I did not suggest that ID or "creation science" were their loves, but rather that science and the scientific method were. Big difference you would do well to observe.
As to supernatural, yes and no. God is very supernatural, but He was also human and lives in humans, so we can test the "human" God, as well as the evidence of God on the humans He dwells within.
"both "
then they do not like the method.
ID'rs not because they've been tryign to change it's very definition, and creationists not because they've been tryign to push a religious dogma as "science". im sorry. but your friends do not love the method or the way it works. that is...if they've been trying to say ID and "creation science" are legitimate science.[/quote] That is not what I said, now is it? See this is what I am talking about... I did not suggest that ID or "creation science" were their loves, but rather that science and the scientific method were. Big difference you would do well to observe.
I got in trouble once with the mods for being off topic, so the testables, we can talk about in PM, I am trying to leave the forum because of this type of rediculous rulings, (not being off topic, but not being able to answer a question that comes up in discussion without warning) so I would have to do it through PM's instead of starting another thread.
As to supernatural, yes and no. God is very supernatural, but He was also human and lives in humans, so we can test the "human" God, as well as the evidence of God on the humans He dwells within.
that isn't what I said, now is it? What I said is that there was indeed a flood, a flood that we know destroyed all of mankind. As to how far it spread, we don't know, it was massive. We also know that science tells us that all the land was at one time all "together" and then seperated, so the science really does suggest that at one point, all the world could have indeed been covered with water, and then drifted...so you have two issues, 1. what does the bible really say, and 2. what does science really say...
so now we limit our evidence to only the bible? How is that fair? How is that a love of science?
Sure we can test for God if He is indeed part of our empiracal world, He should be tested. That is science.
agreed...good luck getting many in the evolutionist mindset to understand that...
right which is the theistic view (generally speaking) a group you left out of your first tantrums.
I'm afraid your tyrants have chased away everyone but me, problem is, I'm not afraid of your venom.
so you are talking to a bunch of people who aren't likely to be on this forum? What logic led you to that being a wise choice?
There are people like that, and then there are people who actually test for God, test the Word, etc. and find it to be without question, truth....
personally, I believe that God created, but how we don't exactly know. I base this on the biblical evaluation of Gen. in conjunction with the scientific discoveries we have made. The two are a lot closer than most people realize. There are a few disagreements, and these are mostly things that science cannot yet evidence, so it's not a big problem to not know yet.
no, but not one you have taken the time to ask up until now.
No, what is a problem is doing so with venom, malice, anger, hatred, etc. In fact, the forum is really cracking down on this type of behavior and doing so to the point that anything can become viewed and sited as a violation, even forgiveness and patience can be twisted to be hatred and venom and in violation.
many, not necessarily all, and they range the whole gammet of beliefs.
there is a vast difference between evaluating an argument and judging others for the argument they provide.
the delusion is that you expect everyone with creationist/Id ideas to be YECist.
and if you specify then people know who and how to respond.
Actually, you were attacking creation...I do believe God created, that by definition makes me a creationist. How He created is in my view still an unanswered question from the biblical standpoint as well as the scientific standpoint. We can discuss it at some point, but not untill you loose the anger and hatred, bitter judging."well for starters you don't know my position so how can you judge whether it is right or wrong?"
see fruther bakc in the reply
"Yep, you were caught in a trap and you are not caught...you judge without knowledge. " don't call em hasty when i haven't even entered the forest yet.
"I see it way to often in both creationists and evolutionists, and honestly you showed it in proclaiming me to be wrong without even knowing what I believe on the topic."
AGAIN, see further back.
"you believe in what you have been convinced to believe."
i think, since you jumped to the conlcusion that i ws already adressing your views, that we're gonna come back on that later in our discussion.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
okay, let's try it this way, show me one peer review presented by a creationist that is full of lies....
Since you didn't read what I actually said, we'll see if you can read it once I challenge you...
all this was posted before you asked....makes you the one jumping to conclusions..."you don't even know what I believe, where I stand and yet you claim this to be irony, your are not flattering yourself. "
PREVIOUS post, ironically you're the one who jumped to conclusions
and a scientist on this very forum actually admitted once that that was because of bias in the scientific community...interesting to note he is a hard core evolutionist.
it is not part of the creation and if the discussion is limited to "origins" it must remain limited. Nothing worse than discussing "origins" with an evolutionist with double standards.
so you are welcome to discuss your objections with him anytime you want.
Testing for a designer is incredibly easy, we do it everyday, without being able to test for a designer, we couldn't test for anything in our natural world. Take for example many of the seeds we have today, if we can't test for design, how can we know which are heritage seeds and which are hybreds?
then be my guest, have a discussion with him, most of the creationists here on this forum aren't him.
Upvote
0
"the problem is you are insulting what you don't understand or know. Never a wise choice, Never..."
i do know im insulting. and i know dam well who i'm insulting and why.
"
Translation for you: When the only evidence you offer is the conclusions of others and what they use to draw that conclusion, your are using their logic, not your own."
eeeh no. you see, when you look at those articles, you see evidence that is presented. THAT's where my conclusion come from. which is again...you do think im stupid enough just to quote and not read what these articles actually say.
"I have heard people with a boatload of hate, give more credit and patience to listening to anothers point of view than you have in this thread. "
agian. i haven't even gone into your views, so the isn't much i could have paid much credit and attention to.
"awesome, good luck on that venture."
tnx, now care to put a better sarcasm mark on that?
"you didn't even take time to try and educate anyone before launching into a tyrant of accusations and insults. "
i see you did the reply quote by quote...my explination for my rant still had to came at this point into the post...
yes i did educate myself on what the people whought who i insulted. and i treid to educate them on the fallacies i insuled them for.
"We have a son who is so involved in animals it's scary. In fact, he has been studying animals since before he could read. He know about anything you could even fathom to ask about animals. What we could never get him to understand is that no everyone knows as much about animals as he does. He always thought everyone should know everything he did about animals."
he'll leanr, just like em, that soem people just like to stay with easy answers or that they won't take the tiem to properly learn something.
"I will say the same to you, when you unleash venom and anger before attempting to find out what someone knows or doesn't know,"
XD again you still haven't read the explination of my rant XD.
", all you do is drive them further from the truth. Not everyone knows what you do,
" and unfortunately for you some people actually know more than you do."
gr8, then teach me, and make sure what you teach me has evidence. oh and plz don't call em an "arrogant knowitall" between the lines, when i have yet to tell you exaclty what i know.
"| Before attacking, try finding out what they know and speak with respect to them,"
i don't know what you know, but i know what Hovind and his folowers claim they know.
again, i haven't even ADRESSED you on what you believe and know.
"you might be surprised how much further you will get with your mission to convert the world to ToE. "
convert implies religoion.
acceptance of ToE is NOT a religion.
a better example would be to picture me trying to learn english to germans who don't want to learn english.
"and I am telling you all you are doing is concreteing the teachings they currently hold, some good, others bad."
concretign their teachign ey? you mean the ones of the people i insulted after having learned, hear and aressed their arguments? the ones i am rantign about?
or do you mean the people who come apon this and think i put all the creationists in 1 bag?
"the prejudice is not in your belief, but in the hatred and judgments of others without taking the time to find out what they believe."
for the last time. i DID take the time to find out what the people who i ridiculed (one mentioned in my rant) believed. otherwise what would i be ridiculing them for?
"This kind of vengence is what destroys so many lives in this world of ours."
i'd argue that creationists like Kent Hovind *(the people who i dislike) destroyed more minds then i have lives.
"you can apply 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 depending on how you view the bible."
mm sharp contrast with you claimign gen isn't to be viewed a scientific and also since the bible doesn't offer a working mechanism for god's "creating" nor does it containt a hypothesis, data chart or a conclusion.
"right, thus my comment about the literary style of a work."
and thus my dislike for people who do tend to take it as "science".
"I can't believe you haven't studied this yet, take a good literature class while your at school."
i did, but i wasn't adressing it's status as litarature in the sense of 1,2,3,5 but in the sense of 4. somethign they don't really teach you in literature class im afraid.
(best you can get is an informative or explanatory article, and the bible doesn't even adhere to those standards)
"Then you would be talking to a small group of creationists/ID's and would be best served to specify the group you are referring to before attacking everyone with a different belief from yourself."
which i did?
or did you miss the words "some", "those who" ,"like ...." "who use..." ?
"then specify before attacking everyone with differing beliefs."
same as above.
"It's a simple thing, a simple request. A simple way to unleash your venom without stricking innocent victums."
which i wasn't trying to do, first i need to figure out if you deserve it.
i suggest you start the next post with "what I believe" so we can get this discussion rolling.
i do know im insulting. and i know dam well who i'm insulting and why.
"
Translation for you: When the only evidence you offer is the conclusions of others and what they use to draw that conclusion, your are using their logic, not your own."
eeeh no. you see, when you look at those articles, you see evidence that is presented. THAT's where my conclusion come from. which is again...you do think im stupid enough just to quote and not read what these articles actually say.
"I have heard people with a boatload of hate, give more credit and patience to listening to anothers point of view than you have in this thread. "
agian. i haven't even gone into your views, so the isn't much i could have paid much credit and attention to.
"awesome, good luck on that venture."
tnx, now care to put a better sarcasm mark on that?
"you didn't even take time to try and educate anyone before launching into a tyrant of accusations and insults. "
i see you did the reply quote by quote...my explination for my rant still had to came at this point into the post...
yes i did educate myself on what the people whought who i insulted. and i treid to educate them on the fallacies i insuled them for.
"We have a son who is so involved in animals it's scary. In fact, he has been studying animals since before he could read. He know about anything you could even fathom to ask about animals. What we could never get him to understand is that no everyone knows as much about animals as he does. He always thought everyone should know everything he did about animals."
he'll leanr, just like em, that soem people just like to stay with easy answers or that they won't take the tiem to properly learn something.
"I will say the same to you, when you unleash venom and anger before attempting to find out what someone knows or doesn't know,"
XD again you still haven't read the explination of my rant XD.
", all you do is drive them further from the truth. Not everyone knows what you do,
" and unfortunately for you some people actually know more than you do."
gr8, then teach me, and make sure what you teach me has evidence. oh and plz don't call em an "arrogant knowitall" between the lines, when i have yet to tell you exaclty what i know.
"| Before attacking, try finding out what they know and speak with respect to them,"
i don't know what you know, but i know what Hovind and his folowers claim they know.
again, i haven't even ADRESSED you on what you believe and know.
"you might be surprised how much further you will get with your mission to convert the world to ToE. "
convert implies religoion.
acceptance of ToE is NOT a religion.
a better example would be to picture me trying to learn english to germans who don't want to learn english.
"and I am telling you all you are doing is concreteing the teachings they currently hold, some good, others bad."
concretign their teachign ey? you mean the ones of the people i insulted after having learned, hear and aressed their arguments? the ones i am rantign about?
or do you mean the people who come apon this and think i put all the creationists in 1 bag?
"the prejudice is not in your belief, but in the hatred and judgments of others without taking the time to find out what they believe."
for the last time. i DID take the time to find out what the people who i ridiculed (one mentioned in my rant) believed. otherwise what would i be ridiculing them for?
"This kind of vengence is what destroys so many lives in this world of ours."
i'd argue that creationists like Kent Hovind *(the people who i dislike) destroyed more minds then i have lives.
"you can apply 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 depending on how you view the bible."
mm sharp contrast with you claimign gen isn't to be viewed a scientific and also since the bible doesn't offer a working mechanism for god's "creating" nor does it containt a hypothesis, data chart or a conclusion.
"right, thus my comment about the literary style of a work."
and thus my dislike for people who do tend to take it as "science".
"I can't believe you haven't studied this yet, take a good literature class while your at school."
i did, but i wasn't adressing it's status as litarature in the sense of 1,2,3,5 but in the sense of 4. somethign they don't really teach you in literature class im afraid.
(best you can get is an informative or explanatory article, and the bible doesn't even adhere to those standards)
"Then you would be talking to a small group of creationists/ID's and would be best served to specify the group you are referring to before attacking everyone with a different belief from yourself."
which i did?
or did you miss the words "some", "those who" ,"like ...." "who use..." ?
"then specify before attacking everyone with differing beliefs."
same as above.
"It's a simple thing, a simple request. A simple way to unleash your venom without stricking innocent victums."
which i wasn't trying to do, first i need to figure out if you deserve it.
i suggest you start the next post with "what I believe" so we can get this discussion rolling.
Upvote
0
"I got in trouble once with the mods for being off topic, so the testables, we can talk about in PM, I am trying to leave the forum because of this type of rediculous rulings, (not being off topic, but not being able to answer a question that comes up in discussion without warning) so I would have to do it through PM's instead of starting another thread."
they are THAT strict?
i never even noticed...
then again im used to the 'everythign goes" format of freehovind.com...
damm all the homosexuality nd pedo accusations "evolutionists"get there...it's ashonishing.
"As to supernatural, yes and no. God is very supernatural, but He was also human and lives in humans, so we can test the "human" God, as well as the evidence of God on the humans He dwells within."
so would you say his testable side lies within the neuron wirign of the brain? or in it's end results (thoughts, thinkign, reasoning, pattern finding)?
"that isn't what I said, now is it? "
and it wasn't you i was actually adressing with that post XD (sry). it was more to, "everythign must eb vindicated if the bible is to eb taken literally"
"What I said is that there was indeed a flood, a flood that we know destroyed all of mankind."
which i do not believe, as that would have happend either quite recently (when man had set up famrign comunities near bodies of water) and we would then have seen something the the genetic varaibility, let alon massive archelogical evidence.
"We also know that science tells us that all the land was at one time all "together" and then seperated, so the science really does suggest that at one point, all the world could have indeed been covered with water,"
ehm..it might be interestign to not that pangea (the super continent) was 600 MY ago. humaniods only appeared as recently as 2.7 MY ago, and anythign even remotely close to develop communities capable of paddign on stories would be about 100K years ago.
so even IF there was a huge flood on pangea, it didn't effect mankind.
"and then drifted..."
WOW. do you mean "the continents drivted apart on the water?
if so, then i urge you to look plate techtonics up again (the thingy that explains pangea)
continental plates float on magma, not water.
"so now we limit our evidence to only the bible? How is that fair? How is that a love of science? "
AGAIN (you missed the "if" btw)
this was more aimed at literal believers who took the bibles word as actual history.
"agreed...good luck getting many in the evolutionist mindset to understand that..."
pardon?
we've been saying that ever since this got started, hence our need for a natural explination of the uiniverse, hence the entire need to come up with science!
and hence the reason why "creation science" is for the most part, and oxymoron.
"right which is the theistic view (generally speaking) a group you left out of your first tantrums."
which i wasn't trying to ridicule in my rant to beign with?*
"I'm afraid your tyrants have chased away everyone but me, problem is, I'm not afraid of your venom."
why should any1 even be afraid of this venom. and i've NEVER seen a hostile nature to be a problem for most "conservative" belivers to espouse their opinion of reality. btw, i think no lurkers are posting because our posts are long as hell, and it's much more entertaining to see 2 people "battle it out" then to complicate it with your own version.
"so you are talking to a bunch of people who aren't likely to be on this forum? What logic led you to that being a wise choice?"
oH YES!, they are.
i urge you to loo kup "Dad" and "juvensial" and "AV (something) and "evolutionslayer"
trust me, people like them are on every christian forum nowadays.
"There are people like that, and then there are people who actually test for God, test the Word, etc. and find it to be without question, truth...."
see the thing is, those people will claim they have "the truth" even without testign it, and certain parts ...are well...untestable or just plain contradictory.
"The two are a lot closer than most people realize"
as long as it's not literal, you can stretch it quite far i appears.
"and these are mostly things that science cannot yet evidence"
you do understand that the diversity of life, isn't one of those problem spots for science?
"no, but not one you have taken the time to ask up until now."
and i explained why.
"No, what is a problem is doing so with venom, malice, anger, hatred,"
i leave that for AFTER i've heard their beliefs. if they deserve it ofc.
"many, not necessarily all, and they range the whole gammet of beliefs."
y, but im talking about the argument people put up for those beliefs.
"there is a vast difference between evaluating an argument and judging others for the argument they provide."
i haven't jusdged you, or anyone who hasn't yet told me their beliefs yet. (unless ofc they presume that i'll judge them because they fit the catogory of the people who i ranted against)
"the delusion is that you expect everyone with creationist/Id ideas to be YECist. "
no....
i just detest those the most.
"I do believe God created, that by definition makes me a creationist." again depending on the semantics,
under some definition is can call a BBT, abiogensis and ToE accepting deity, a creationist.
but thoe aren;t mainly the people who try to push their beliefs.
"but not untill you loose the anger and hatred, bitter judging."
i am in fact, much les hostile then i appear in your eyes atm, you mistook my rant agaisnt the peopl i already "debated" as a rant agaisnt you.
i should have specified it better XD.
they are THAT strict?
i never even noticed...
then again im used to the 'everythign goes" format of freehovind.com...
damm all the homosexuality nd pedo accusations "evolutionists"get there...it's ashonishing.
"As to supernatural, yes and no. God is very supernatural, but He was also human and lives in humans, so we can test the "human" God, as well as the evidence of God on the humans He dwells within."
so would you say his testable side lies within the neuron wirign of the brain? or in it's end results (thoughts, thinkign, reasoning, pattern finding)?
"that isn't what I said, now is it? "
and it wasn't you i was actually adressing with that post XD (sry). it was more to, "everythign must eb vindicated if the bible is to eb taken literally"
"What I said is that there was indeed a flood, a flood that we know destroyed all of mankind."
which i do not believe, as that would have happend either quite recently (when man had set up famrign comunities near bodies of water) and we would then have seen something the the genetic varaibility, let alon massive archelogical evidence.
"We also know that science tells us that all the land was at one time all "together" and then seperated, so the science really does suggest that at one point, all the world could have indeed been covered with water,"
ehm..it might be interestign to not that pangea (the super continent) was 600 MY ago. humaniods only appeared as recently as 2.7 MY ago, and anythign even remotely close to develop communities capable of paddign on stories would be about 100K years ago.
so even IF there was a huge flood on pangea, it didn't effect mankind.
"and then drifted..."
WOW. do you mean "the continents drivted apart on the water?
if so, then i urge you to look plate techtonics up again (the thingy that explains pangea)
continental plates float on magma, not water.
"so now we limit our evidence to only the bible? How is that fair? How is that a love of science? "
AGAIN (you missed the "if" btw)
this was more aimed at literal believers who took the bibles word as actual history.
"agreed...good luck getting many in the evolutionist mindset to understand that..."
pardon?
we've been saying that ever since this got started, hence our need for a natural explination of the uiniverse, hence the entire need to come up with science!
and hence the reason why "creation science" is for the most part, and oxymoron.
"right which is the theistic view (generally speaking) a group you left out of your first tantrums."
which i wasn't trying to ridicule in my rant to beign with?*
"I'm afraid your tyrants have chased away everyone but me, problem is, I'm not afraid of your venom."
why should any1 even be afraid of this venom. and i've NEVER seen a hostile nature to be a problem for most "conservative" belivers to espouse their opinion of reality. btw, i think no lurkers are posting because our posts are long as hell, and it's much more entertaining to see 2 people "battle it out" then to complicate it with your own version.
"so you are talking to a bunch of people who aren't likely to be on this forum? What logic led you to that being a wise choice?"
oH YES!, they are.
i urge you to loo kup "Dad" and "juvensial" and "AV (something) and "evolutionslayer"
trust me, people like them are on every christian forum nowadays.
"There are people like that, and then there are people who actually test for God, test the Word, etc. and find it to be without question, truth...."
see the thing is, those people will claim they have "the truth" even without testign it, and certain parts ...are well...untestable or just plain contradictory.
"The two are a lot closer than most people realize"
as long as it's not literal, you can stretch it quite far i appears.
"and these are mostly things that science cannot yet evidence"
you do understand that the diversity of life, isn't one of those problem spots for science?
"no, but not one you have taken the time to ask up until now."
and i explained why.
"No, what is a problem is doing so with venom, malice, anger, hatred,"
i leave that for AFTER i've heard their beliefs. if they deserve it ofc.
"many, not necessarily all, and they range the whole gammet of beliefs."
y, but im talking about the argument people put up for those beliefs.
"there is a vast difference between evaluating an argument and judging others for the argument they provide."
i haven't jusdged you, or anyone who hasn't yet told me their beliefs yet. (unless ofc they presume that i'll judge them because they fit the catogory of the people who i ranted against)
"the delusion is that you expect everyone with creationist/Id ideas to be YECist. "
no....
i just detest those the most.
"I do believe God created, that by definition makes me a creationist." again depending on the semantics,
under some definition is can call a BBT, abiogensis and ToE accepting deity, a creationist.
but thoe aren;t mainly the people who try to push their beliefs.
"but not untill you loose the anger and hatred, bitter judging."
i am in fact, much les hostile then i appear in your eyes atm, you mistook my rant agaisnt the peopl i already "debated" as a rant agaisnt you.
i should have specified it better XD.
Upvote
0
"okay, let's try it this way, show me one peer review presented by a creationist that is full of lies...."
impossible they have no system of peer review. and they haven't even gotten through one actual peer review set once. not only that, the people who do write most of the articles aren't exactly top notch scientists either.
i can show you lots of standard debunking vids tho (mainly hovind, Ham and expelled) and even a rare part where a creationist is called on his unscientific conduct in one of their own magazines.
ofc, the man who wrote the article didn't fix the errors.
im latking about the infamous "variable C" paper.
you' might be awar of it, it's very old tho.
but, YOU made the first claim. so pelae provide me with the "lie" sicne you seem to know what you are referring too.
"all this was posted before you asked....makes you the one jumping to conclusions..."
before i asked you i wasn't even adressing your beliefs
"and a scientist on this very forum actually admitted once that that was because of bias in the scientific community...interesting to note he is a hard core evolutionist."
that is half true. see you an consider it a kind "bias" if you're only allowing acutal scientific papers though your peer review system and if you're only dealign with natural explinations.
and article that sais "because god.." is almost instantly rejected.
but still i wan tat least one name.
and i wan tone who'se from the actual field, not one that specializes in something else intirely.
can't blame a aerospae engineer because he knows little of biology.
" Nothing worse than discussing "origins" with an evolutionist with double standards. "
double standards?
explain
"so you are welcome to discuss your objections with him anytime you want"
can't , he either ignores you or send you a "you deluded by staten"esque reply, even to fellow christians who point him on his BS.
"Testing for a designer is incredibly easy, we do it everyday, without being able to test for a designer, we couldn't test for anything in our natural world."
does not compute.
how do you you test for something supernatural, and why test for something when there is no need for it to eb designed at all?
and still you need to give a mechanism by WHICH the designer does it.
no point in just replacing the "how" with "who".
"if we can't test for design, how can we know which are heritage seeds and which are hybreds?"
because of their morphological and genetic charactaristics.
stuff that needend be "designed" at all.
"then be my guest, have a discussion with him, most of the creationists here on this forum aren't him."
can;t, he ceonsors you.
look at the entire DMCA scandal between Discovery institute and the youtube user "donexodus2".
that and he doesn't call himself a "creationist" as that would hurt their image.
impossible they have no system of peer review. and they haven't even gotten through one actual peer review set once. not only that, the people who do write most of the articles aren't exactly top notch scientists either.
i can show you lots of standard debunking vids tho (mainly hovind, Ham and expelled) and even a rare part where a creationist is called on his unscientific conduct in one of their own magazines.
ofc, the man who wrote the article didn't fix the errors.
im latking about the infamous "variable C" paper.
you' might be awar of it, it's very old tho.
but, YOU made the first claim. so pelae provide me with the "lie" sicne you seem to know what you are referring too.
"all this was posted before you asked....makes you the one jumping to conclusions..."
before i asked you i wasn't even adressing your beliefs
"and a scientist on this very forum actually admitted once that that was because of bias in the scientific community...interesting to note he is a hard core evolutionist."
that is half true. see you an consider it a kind "bias" if you're only allowing acutal scientific papers though your peer review system and if you're only dealign with natural explinations.
and article that sais "because god.." is almost instantly rejected.
but still i wan tat least one name.
and i wan tone who'se from the actual field, not one that specializes in something else intirely.
can't blame a aerospae engineer because he knows little of biology.
" Nothing worse than discussing "origins" with an evolutionist with double standards. "
double standards?
explain
"so you are welcome to discuss your objections with him anytime you want"
can't , he either ignores you or send you a "you deluded by staten"esque reply, even to fellow christians who point him on his BS.
"Testing for a designer is incredibly easy, we do it everyday, without being able to test for a designer, we couldn't test for anything in our natural world."
does not compute.
how do you you test for something supernatural, and why test for something when there is no need for it to eb designed at all?
and still you need to give a mechanism by WHICH the designer does it.
no point in just replacing the "how" with "who".
"if we can't test for design, how can we know which are heritage seeds and which are hybreds?"
because of their morphological and genetic charactaristics.
stuff that needend be "designed" at all.
"then be my guest, have a discussion with him, most of the creationists here on this forum aren't him."
can;t, he ceonsors you.
look at the entire DMCA scandal between Discovery institute and the youtube user "donexodus2".
that and he doesn't call himself a "creationist" as that would hurt their image.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
you deceive yourself.
I think the venom you have shown is evidence that you are afraid to hear anothers point of view which is most often the result of only knowing what you have been taught and not knowing how to reason for yourself.
no sarcasm, good luck in what you are pursueing, may you find truth and grace in all your pursuits.
wrong, but you are free to deceive yourself, it's your right.
nothing even close to the point, but okay.
I've read it, but only see the deception you use to excuse your venom.
I have had some very incredible discussions with some very educated evolutionists. But I refuse to do so with venom and attacks.
it can be if treated like a religion.
then talk to them alone because you have not offered anyone else here a civil tongue.
right, not a scientific treatise. Just like I said.
yet not every creationist does, so labeling them as such, is an injustice.
you'd be surprised at what an actual study reveals.
right, only after your inicial attacks
Already provided what I believe....why repeat it for someone as intellegent as yourself?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
