I think this needs to be pointed out. I'm willing to bet that a majority of non-creationists here still either have read or are reading the bible and understand it's context --
A survey by the Pew Research Center confirms this.
Upvote
0
I think this needs to be pointed out. I'm willing to bet that a majority of non-creationists here still either have read or are reading the bible and understand it's context --
Delphiki, thanks for your reply, but this is not the claim that you originally made which i addressed.
To clarify, i wasn't asking about any one (or two) particular user who may have wild ideas, but this majority you spoke of before and now for some reason seem to allude to only two.
final suggestion, perhaps someone who better understands the bible contextually should be sufficiently equipped to relate well to christians and/or creationists.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "ring species"Interesting to see ring species brought up. I haven't seen them used to blow a creationist out of the water in a while.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "ring species"
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "ring species"
I'm not the one making the claim that i can better interpret the bible...you suggested this. therefore, read my "final suggestion" thusly: if you are better at understanding the bible contextually, perhaps you are better able to appeal to creationists intellectually and shouldn't be suffering from this frustration you often express.
saying a secular theologian is the best authority for understanding the bible in proper context is little different than saying an american linguistics professor is the best authority on colloquial russian, and not a russian living in russia.
edit: is there a particular video you recommend by the user you linked? i'd like to check him out, but not necessarily all of them. is there a particularly strong one you like? thanks.
Actually its more like a professor of English who speaks English as a second language but does it better then someone who speaks it as a first language but failed English
Is this the moment when Poe's Law was stated?POE'S LAW:
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.
Is this the moment when Poe's Law was stated?
Consider Carico's attitude on this forum:im only two pages into reading this thread and may take a while to finish it. i'm sure by then i'll have lots to comment on or respond to, but i wanted to start now with this question: do i HAVE to be an a-hole to be a proponent of evolution? i'm very interested in evolution theory, but it appears that every response so far to the original poster's question has been met with venomous ridicule and claims that the questioner couldn't possibly have the intelligence to understand the replies that are still, i suppose begrudgingly given. now, i want to be sure on this because if i become a defender of evolution i don't want to do it the wrong way: is it absolutely important that i step on people with their very innocent questions? thanks in advance for what will certainly prove to be interesting responses and i'll get back to reading the rest of the thread.
mmmm, im tired...and i'd rather not read more from her if i can avoid it. i will (later) if you really want me to and have a reason for me to do so, but i think however irritating she may've been here or wherever she may troll, my points remain valid.
evolution is best define as gradual change over time. it is slow....horrendously slow. you arent going to go from pig to flying pig in one generation. it would likely take millions. all changes in a species are brought about by random mutation in the genome of the parent organism.