• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evolution is a Fact

Status
Not open for further replies.

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe you are a Christian, if you are, you must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God and with no lies right?

Explain to me how evolution supports God's Word in this Scripture..

-"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."


-"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

-"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

-“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness.’ ”


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]God is spirit and we were created for fellowship with him, how can you suggest we are like animals[/FONT] and not like God? Did God not say that we should be created to His image and His likeness? Evolution is dependent on time, God is outside of time and does not fall under evolution and so are we!

:thumbsup:


Its called Theistic Evolution. Its embraced by the majority of Christians today. You may have heard of it.
 
Upvote 0

rjw

Regular Member
Mar 2, 2004
915
93
✟1,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Ursie said:
.... without hard information and clear evidence of exactly how this lifeform changed from one thing to another,

There are two kinds of things that need to be discussed:-

1) evidence that something did happen (e.g. organisms did indeed change) and

2) a mechanism for how this something happened (e.g. evolution of some kind).


These are two distinct things.

U said:
If there is such hard proof, then there should be museums, or labs where one can go and see the hard proof, all layed out in a logical order.
The nested hierarchy is such a "proof".

As far as we can tell, there is only one mechanism that gives rise to such a thing, namely a process of common descent with modification. Living and extinct organism are classified into such an hierarchy. Linnaeus did it first, although he didn't call his classification a "nested hierarchy". However it is.

We observe this hierarchy with animal's morphologies, in their genes, and in the proteins made by their genes.

The existence of such a hierarchy is evidence for the process of common descent acting throughout life in both space and time.

U said:
None of the proofs should be man-made.
Every proof is man made. All mathematical proofs are man made. All scientific “proofs” are man made.

U said:
The processes and changes of the being should be quite evident and each one thoroughly explained so that the students you're trying so hard to convince can clearly see what is going on.

This begs the question, given a process of common descent with modification, how can you not see a nested hierarchy falling out, naturally? Do you understand what a nested hierarchy is?



Regards, Roland
 
Upvote 0

rjw

Regular Member
Mar 2, 2004
915
93
✟1,624.00
Faith
Atheist
I believe you are a Christian, if you are, you must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God and with no lies right?

Explain to me how evolution supports God's Word in this Scripture..

-"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."


-"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

-"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

-“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness.’ ”


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]God is spirit and we were created for fellowship with him, how can you suggest we are like animals[/FONT] and not like God? Did God not say that we should be created to His image and His likeness? Evolution is dependent on time, God is outside of time and does not fall under evolution and so are we!

:thumbsup:

If you are serious in this kind of argument, then numerous verses scattered throughout Job, Psalms, Nahum and Zechariah make it clear that our daily weather (frost, rain, snow and wind), do not have natural origins, but rather God directly causes them.

That being the case, do you also reject modern meteorological theory in favour of Biblical meteorology, in the same manner that you reject modern biological theory in favour of your interpretation of Biblical biology?


Regards, Roland
 
Upvote 0

Gracchus

Senior Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
7,199
821
California
Visit site
✟38,182.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I couldn't resist coming back. I so enjoy being called a moron you know! LOL

You are not a moron. Insane perhaps, but not a moron.

First, I must make a correction for a mistype earlier. I stated that my engineering husband of 17 years has come to the conclusion that logic is the only way to understand anything. What I meant to type was that he has learned that logic is NOT the only way to look at information. Often, logical analysis can be quite a barrier as the world is made up of many things that we can't see. Love, wind, etc.

But we can investigate these insubstantial things by inductive and deductive logic. If they are not manifest there is probably no reason to assume they are real. Real things usually manifest themselves.

The foundational question is 'Where did it all begin?' If you can't answer this, you have no foundation on which to build. If I tell you a printer just popped up on the beach, fully functioning, you're going to know that someone designed that puppy. It didn't materialize out of seaweed and whale poop now did it!?

Consider mathematics. We make a number of assumptions: If A=B then B=A. If A=B and B=C, then A=C, ... things that seem kind of obvious, and from these we deduce by kind of obvious rules things that are not so obvious, like e^(ix) = cos x + i * sin x. We started by assuming statements and rules, but guess what? It works! It corresponds to the real world! We can build computers and plot trajectories that take our rockets on photographic missions to other worlds, and cure all sorts of diseases,...

Of course we can make other sorts of assumptions. We can assume that there is a magic man in the sky and that if we beg or wail or dance or tear our clothing or kill our first-born children he will make the plague go away. Guess what? It doesn't work, and so it seems we are justified in discarding those assumptions and those methods.

Of course we could be wrong, but at least until we are shown to be wrong we are probably better off depending on those assumptions and methods that give good results, or until we can discover assumptions and methods that give better results.

Second, SHOW ME!!!! Show me just one species that is alive today for which you have the previous iterations full fossil remains where it turns from one species into the next.

That is known as the missing link fallacy. I show you a fossil, species B, that is temporally and morphologically intermediate between species A and species C and you require two more fossils between A and B, and B and C. What you are demanding is that we show you every single generation tens of thousands or even millions of them. But fossilization is very rare.
Nevertheless, we have very complete fossil records of some transitions.

Not drawings, hard, real material. All I've ever seen, and what Thaumatergy offered in his link to 29 proofs are drawings. That is NOT hard proof. How can you possibly say it is?

If you want to see hard proof, not pictures, you are going to have to go to museums of natural history and gain access to their reference collections. Don't expect them to ship them to you and do expect that they are going to require you to demonstrate that you can handle those collections with care. The best way to demonstrate that, unfortunately for you, is extensive study under qualified teachers to learn not only how to handle the specimens but how to understand what you are seeing.

If I bring you some green slime and say it came from a martian, you're gonna ask to see that martian.

No, you got it wrong. The first thing I am going to do is try to analyze that slime. If it turns out to have the chemical composition, odor, and other characteristics of lime gelatin, then I am going to find your claim hard to believe. If analysis shows that it's composition is unknown, and unlike anything ever observed before, we may entertain the possibility it is Martian poop.

By the way, if every single fossil in the world were to disappear, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. It comes from biochemistry, embryology, developmental biology, genetics, and biogeography. We have seen evolution in the laboratory and in the field. A hundred and fifty years after Darwin, his theory is stronger than ever.

If I can't produce it then you're gonna debunk it. Show me. Not just a bunch of high sounding words that amount to nothing, show me the physical proof. Every bit of 'proof' I've ever seen in any book consists of drawings. Or one picture of one thing. These things require great detail to prove.

Those long high sounding words may mean nothing to you, but they have very clear definitions, very precise definitions, so that ambiguity is minimized. Those definitions have to be precise. Did you know that people used to be killed because they held to the doctrine of homoiusion instead of the "correct" doctrine of homousion?

You have to study the vocabulary and the structures and processes to which it applies, before you can make sense of them. You are probably not going to gain that understanding because you know in your heart that some ancient Palestinian who spoke a language you don't understand, and whose world-view was totally alien to you, and who is long dead, loves you. You may understand it for that reason, but I am willing to bet that is an assumption that will not stand the test.

You have to be willing to put in the time and effort.


What I have attempted to show you is that you are ignorant. Ignorance is usually not a crime, though it can get you killed. You are not necessarily stupid, though it well may be you are incapable of understanding the material you demand, or maybe you are just too lazy to do the work, or perhaps you really don't care enough to take the trouble.

To expect us to respect your opinions if you are stupid, or lazy, especially if you continue to spout nonsense, would indeed be moronic. You are not a moron, so don't act like one.

In any case, half of all people are below average in intelligence, and it is no more to the credit of those in the top ten percent that they are what they are than it is to the discredit of those in the bottom ten percent that they are as they are.

I have probably dealt professionally with more morons, imbeciles, and idiots that you have and liked most of them.

Now... Have you any specific questions about evolution, the philosophy of science or how science operates?

:wave:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hawk007

Newbie
Jan 2, 2009
228
7
Cape Town , South Africa
✟7,906.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Look, no offense, but I'm not going to pander to willful ignorance. The fossils exist, they have been dated as existing sequentially, and they display change in form. We know mutations lead to novel phenotypes, therefore it was Evolution.




And.... They are. Are you joking? I saw Lucy, Australiopithecus in person a year ago.




Oh Lord have mercy.... are you seriously going down the wild-eyed conspiracy path. Please stop now, while you at least sound vaguely sane. :sick:




They are.



Um, we believe them because we can actually understand the material and evidences presented, unlike you. You are being incredibly rude. Before you take on your martyred air, please remember that you are the one accusing us of being liars and gullible.



I just did. You simply did not have the requisite level of elementary education to comprehend it, which I think is unfortunate and evidence that our public schools need an overhaul



Why bother? If evolution is true for one species, it is true for all species.



I'm going to be honest, if you believe that you are flat out ignorant. We know a great deal.



That is science. Unlike religion, it makes no claim to mystical infallibility and perfection. This is a common mistake Creationists make in assuming that a laboratory is like a church.



I already did. I really don't know how I can dumb it down any further, to be honest.:help:




Not absolutely everything. Only religion makes claims like that. Stop putting words in my mouth. Its annoying, and against forum rules.




Because your claim that transitional fossils don't exist is absurd. :doh:



Just ignorant.



Hardly. There you go, goading and flaming again.



A conclusion that was falsified decades ago.

I believe you are a Christian, if you are, you must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God and with no lies right?

Explain to me how evolution supports God's Word in this Scripture..

-"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."


-"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

-"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

-“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness.’ ”


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]God is spirit and we were created for fellowship with him, how can you suggest we are like animals[/FONT] and not like God? Did God not say that we should be created to His image and His likeness? Evolution is dependent on time, God is outside of time and does not fall under evolution and so are we!

Maybe you could actually give me any support for evolution in the Bible, if you believe in evolution because we got bones in the ground, then you must make a decision who you believe to be the ultimate truth, God or science? Who of these two makes the most mistakes? The one is an observer and the other the Creator......it is easy to make a mistake if things are not observed in real time and the information on these bones are very limited, how is it possible to know everything about an animal if you only found a few bones, because in quite a few cases they only have a few bones, it is logical to think that much of what is sold to the public is not truth, but really suggestion they came up with to the best of their knowledge......which is not all the knowledge.

There is a big concern with carbon dating in particular....."Carbon-14 has dated freshly killed seals to have died 1300 years ago; living snail shells show they have died 27,000 years ago; a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years."


This to me means that the dating done to explain the age of certain things is very unreliable..... but anyway, we have a free will, the most important is the Savior, Jesus Christ!

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

rjw

Regular Member
Mar 2, 2004
915
93
✟1,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Oh, and the reason my cosmological question affects biological evolution is that the idea you all found everything on is that life began somehow magically out of nothing, or mabye a big bang, or we're not really sure how. If you don't know where life came from in the first place, how is there life? The idea you proport is that the life came from something organic, which evolved into life, which then evolved into more life and so on. How does that start out of nothing?
Again, the kind of argument you offer above applies to everything.

We do manage to work out how rain, wind and snow occur, without having first to explain the origin of everything.

U said:
God, that's how. You may not believe in Him, but He believes in you.
So say some. Others say "no". Yet others say "yes" but that you make the claim for the wrong god.



Regards, Roland
 
Upvote 0

TheReasoner

Atheist. Former Christian.
Mar 14, 2005
10,294
684
Norway
✟37,162.00
Country
Norway
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Its called Theistic Evolution. Its embraced by the majority of Christians today. You may have heard of it.

Quite!

I believe you are a Christian, if you are, you must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God and with no lies right?

Explain to me how evolution supports God's Word in this Scripture..

-"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."


-"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

-"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

-“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness.’ ”


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]God is spirit and we were created for fellowship with him, how can you suggest we are like animals[/FONT] and not like God? Did God not say that we should be created to His image and His likeness? Evolution is dependent on time, God is outside of time and does not fall under evolution and so are we!

:thumbsup:

God is outside of time. Quite. So why would He even think twice about letting the universe unfold over billions of years? Billions of years or six days make no difference to him. Factor in the relative nature of time and the observed nature of the universe and it is obvious that He did not create it six thousand years ago during a six day period. It doesn't matter to Him anyway, right?

Furthermore, if you read the bible literally like you claim we must, how then do you explain the following:
I Samuel 2 starting at verse 8:
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
Clearly, by your logic you MUST read this verse as the earth being placed on pillars.

Or what about: Isaiah 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Even if you read this in Hebrew it becomes clear that the circle is indeed a coin like circle, not a ball. So again. The world MUST BE FLAT.

Add to that Job 37:18
can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

and it is clear that a literal interpretation of the bible leads to belief in a flat world built upon pillars with a hard, forged sky above. We know all the above to be false. So either:
a: the bible is wrong
b: the bible is not meant to be read that way.

I opt for b.
Especially given my experiences which dictate that God must exist. Yet also clearly illustrate that a literal interpretation of the bible is both harmful and inconsistent with reality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheOutsider
Upvote 0

rjw

Regular Member
Mar 2, 2004
915
93
✟1,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Hawk007 said:
Maybe you could actually give me any support for evolution in the Bible, if you believe in evolution because we got bones in the ground, then you must make a decision who you believe to be the ultimate truth, God or science? Who of these two makes the most mistakes?
How do you count?

H said:
The one is an observer and the other the Creator......it is easy to make a mistake if things are not observed in real time ...
It is easy to make mistakes when things are observed in real time.

H said:
... and the information on these bones are very limited, ...
Real time information is also limited. If it were not, then we could indeed know everything, now.

H said:
how is it possible to know everything about an animal if you only found a few bones, ...

Who claims to know everything about an animal based on a few bones. I know of no such person. So how about a link to an example of someone making this claim?

H said:
... because in quite a few cases they only have a few bones, it is logical to think that much of what is sold to the public is not truth, but really suggestion they came up with to the best of their knowledge......which is not all the knowledge.

Well what you have described above is exactly what happens. People generally make claims based on the evidence they have. Your suggestion that some folk claim to know everything based on a few bones appears suspicious to me.

So have you any evidence to back up your claim, or did you simply make it up?


H said:
There is a big concern with carbon dating in particular....."Carbon-14 has dated freshly killed seals to have died 1300 years ago; living snail shells show they have died 27,000 years ago; a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years."

A thousand times a day, across the world, people tell the time and get it wrong, because there is something wrong in how they told the time, or there is something wrong with the time piece they used.

Yet I do not know of anyone who is advocating doing away with all time pieces, or passing a law preventing folk from telling the time, because sometimes mistakes are made.



Regards, Roland
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe you are a Christian, if you are, you must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God and with no lies right?

Explain to me how evolution supports God's Word in this Scripture..

-"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."


-"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

-"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

-“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness.’ ”


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]God is spirit and we were created for fellowship with him, how can you suggest we are like animals[/FONT] and not like God? Did God not say that we should be created to His image and His likeness? Evolution is dependent on time, God is outside of time and does not fall under evolution and so are we!

I could have sworn I already refuted this: Theistic Evolution.


I
Maybe you could actually give me any support for evolution in the Bible, if you believe in evolution because we got bones in the ground, then you must make a decision who you believe to be the ultimate truth, God or science? Who of these two makes the most mistakes? The one is an observer and the other the Creator......it is easy to make a mistake if things are not observed in real time and the information on these bones are very limited, how is it possible to know everything about an animal if you only found a few bones, because in quite a few cases they only have a few bones, it is logical to think that much of what is sold to the public is not truth, but really suggestion they came up with to the best of their knowledge......which is not all the knowledge.

I repeat, Theistic Evolution. And you have a confirmation bias.

I
There is a big concern with carbon dating in particular....."Carbon-14 has dated freshly killed seals to have died 1300 years ago; living snail shells show they have died 27,000 years ago; a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years."

Thank you for the hearsay and that awful anecdote we've heard millions of times. Good thing we have other radiometric dating techniques in our repitoire besides carbon-14, isn't it? ;)

I
This to me means that the dating done to explain the age of certain things is very unreliable

Good thing we have other radiometric dating techniques besides carbon-14. ;)

I
..... but anyway, we have a free will, the most important is the Savior, Jesus Christ!

:thumbsup:

Nice job making a completely irrelevant statement.
 
Upvote 0

Wedjat

Spirited Apostate
Aug 8, 2009
2,673
145
Home sweet home
✟26,307.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I think (and hope) you are incorrect in that sentiment. Well, you probably are not if you count all the christians in rural africa and asia. But as far as the more educated lot, I think you're wrong.
I thought you believed in theistic evolution? Confused now.
 
Upvote 0

Wedjat

Spirited Apostate
Aug 8, 2009
2,673
145
Home sweet home
✟26,307.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is a big concern with carbon dating in particular....."Carbon-14 has dated freshly killed seals to have died 1300 years ago; living snail shells show they have died 27,000 years ago; a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years."

Kindly provide a source.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I thought you believed in theistic evolution? Confused now.


Theistic Evolution is embraced by the Roman Catholic Church, by and far away the largest Christian Denomination. It varies in Orthodoxy in which there is no clearly defined dogma, and it varies in Protestantism. So yes, I'd feel fairly confident in saying that Theistic Evolution is either the majority or a enormous minority.

I think he does believe in Theistic Evolution, he just disagrees over the census, and my statement that most Christians believe in it as well.
 
Upvote 0

TheReasoner

Atheist. Former Christian.
Mar 14, 2005
10,294
684
Norway
✟37,162.00
Country
Norway
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I thought you believed in theistic evolution? Confused now.

haha. Ooops! My fault. That's what happens when you try to focus on several different things at once. You go cross-eyed and write the wrong thing :)

I'll edit my post. For some reason I could have sworn he said something about creationism being supported by most Christians today, which is what I replied to.

Hehe, that was embarassing :p
 
Upvote 0

Ursie

Member
Nov 13, 2009
258
18
Southern Arizona
✟22,978.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The conclusion I come to, after engaging in this conversation is one I've come to before. It is impossible to have an honest debate between parties who've already made up their minds.

We are clearly on different pages, that is going to have to be okay. Do you all ever wonder what is the point of these discussion that we humans have? I know that I do. I think we're all looking for someone who agrees with us, but usually we can't find such a person.

Well, that's a philosophy discussion. Thanks for the discussion. It has certainly been interesting. Blessings to all of you!
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
54
✟258,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The conclusion I come to, after engaging in this conversation is one I've come to before. It is impossible to have an honest debate between parties who've already made up their minds.

We are clearly on different pages, that is going to have to be okay. Do you all ever wonder what is the point of these discussion that we humans have? I know that I do. I think we're all looking for someone who agrees with us, but usually we can't find such a person.

Well, that's a philosophy discussion. Thanks for the discussion. It has certainly been interesting. Blessings to all of you!

But you are not interested in discussion or learning the other side of the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Gracchus

Senior Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
7,199
821
California
Visit site
✟38,182.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is a big concern with carbon dating in particular....."Carbon-14 has dated freshly killed seals to have died 1300 years ago; living snail shells show they have died 27,000 years ago; a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years."

Creatures that do not get their carbon from the atmosphere, such as marine and aquatic species and those species that feed on them are known to give anomalous C14 dates. No scientist would use that method for dating aquatic or marine species.


This to me means that the dating done to explain the age of certain things is very unreliable.....

In fact we can rely on certain things to be unreliable. (e.g. creationists' opinions oo science and religion)

... but anyway, we have a free will, the most important is the Savior, Jesus Christ!

That makes no sense! I thought his name was Jesus, not Will!

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

TheReasoner

Atheist. Former Christian.
Mar 14, 2005
10,294
684
Norway
✟37,162.00
Country
Norway
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The conclusion I come to, after engaging in this conversation is one I've come to before. It is impossible to have an honest debate between parties who've already made up their minds.

We are clearly on different pages, that is going to have to be okay. Do you all ever wonder what is the point of these discussion that we humans have? I know that I do. I think we're all looking for someone who agrees with us, but usually we can't find such a person.

Well, that's a philosophy discussion. Thanks for the discussion. It has certainly been interesting. Blessings to all of you!

Well, I have not made up my mind about practically anything Ursie. I think the same is true for most people on here. The issue is that in order to change opinion most of us require a lot of hard evidence, which creationists cannot supply. Hence we will not change our opinions to match yours. We may discard opinions and adopt new positions but (and I hope I am speaking for most of us now) we will not do so if we are not presented with sufficient evidence in support of the new position.

It's not about zealous conviction in the face of conflicting evidence. If you present me with evidence for a position which topple a given paradigm, of course I will change my position accordingly. I am not religious about my adherence to any given principle. Save perhaps the need to love all other human beings as per the bible's command to love our neighbors and even our enemies. I fail in that pursuit of course (I am merely human after all), but I do try to follow it to the best of my ability.

Like I said though, as far as creationism goes, you simply don't provide any evidence in support of your position. Which is precisely why I abandoned creationism in the first place. The "evidence" provided is hollow and usually doesn't stand up to even the mildest analysis.

Blessings to you too :)
 
Upvote 0

Ursie

Member
Nov 13, 2009
258
18
Southern Arizona
✟22,978.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But you are not interested in discussion or learning the other side of the argument.


I agree, that's pretty much what I said in my last post. I submit that this is true for most of the rest of us as well, excepting of course, the person who is asking a question honestly.
 
Upvote 0

Ursie

Member
Nov 13, 2009
258
18
Southern Arizona
✟22,978.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, I have not made up my mind about practically anything Ursie. I think the same is true for most people on here. The issue is that in order to change opinion most of us require a lot of hard evidence, which creationists cannot supply. Hence we will not change our opinions to match yours. We may discard opinions and adopt new positions but (and I hope I am speaking for most of us now) we will not do so if we are not presented with sufficient evidence in support of the new position.

It's not about zealous conviction in the face of conflicting evidence. If you present me with evidence for a position which topple a given paradigm, of course I will change my position accordingly. I am not religious about my adherence to any given principle. Save perhaps the need to love all other human beings as per the bible's command to love our neighbors and even our enemies. I fail in that pursuit of course (I am merely human after all), but I do try to follow it to the best of my ability.

Like I said though, as far as creationism goes, you simply don't provide any evidence in support of your position. Which is precisely why I abandoned creationism in the first place. The "evidence" provided is hollow and usually doesn't stand up to even the mildest analysis.

Blessings to you too :)

I would agree that at least much of the evidence for creationism is not of a scientific nature, although the flood record stands as a very convincing bit of evidence. However, I'm pretty sure that the folks on this forum aren't fans of the massive flood perspective. I don't need to 'prove' God in a scientific manner. He's shown Himself to me in ways that would not be provable. That's ok, I don't feel the need to try to prove it to anyone.
 
Upvote 0

TheReasoner

Atheist. Former Christian.
Mar 14, 2005
10,294
684
Norway
✟37,162.00
Country
Norway
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree, that's pretty much what I said in my last post. I submit that this is true for most of the rest of us as well, excepting of course, the person who is asking a question honestly.

"A closed mind is a dead mind"
-Vegar Ottesen
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.