Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

[createdtoworship]

Well, when you include all skeptics, that includes me. It's best not to generalize too much, I think.

no not too much generalization, just a basic generalization

I understand your position on that, and I sympathize. It's a very heated topic, though, and one could get endlessly sidetracked on it. Let me just say that compassion also applies to women who may be in very difficult positions. If presented with a woman who is engaged in casual sex with a number of men, gets pregnant, and wants an abortion out of convenience, my use of the Golden Rule does not support her.

Okay so fill in the blank......."it's okay to kill a baby in the womb when....."
I word it this way to cause serious consideration into the mass murder of living humans. There was even a bill that failed due to democrats that voted it down, that would refuse medical treatment to babies born alive, that failed to be aborted. So here we have a literal birth, and it's still treated as tissue not a human.

If presented with a 13-year-old girl who was raped and is emotionally distraught, and can't bear to go through with the pregnancy, my compassion will favor her over a fetus that doesn't have a functioning brain yet.

again fill in the blank "it's okay to kill a living baby in the womb when....." I pose this again, because we need to think of that being as living. Do you know what they do? They tear the baby apart using forceps or crush it's head, while alive. Or vacume it out in pieces. But realize they don't inject it to put it to sleep, the baby is literally tortured to death without anestesia. So yeah, saying it's a heated topic is an understatement, it's really a gross and wicked practice to say the least. Fill in the blank "it's ok to torture a living fetus when.....' The girl is raped? It's ok to torture a living fetus when someone is raped? Is that really what we are talking about? Well I would say, no. I disagree that we should rip a baby apart piece by piece simply because something happened to it's parent. Imagine if you mom was raped and murdered by a mass murderer. Does what happened to her, make your life worthless? Should the government come to your house and say, because your mom was murdered insensibly, you should therefore be murdered? Again I feel for a woman raped, I do. But all the more realize that perfectly good family units are waiting years for a baby to adopt and paying like 10,000 dollars to adopt. If there were more babies, the wait list would be less, and the process streamlined, and the fees lessened. If you can't adopt, foster care or at worse, go to the county. But are you really advocating that because a mother is raped, therefore her baby does not deserve to live? Again if your mother was raped and killed and you were an adult, should the state kill you?

My use of the Golden Rule forces me to consider the problems that the women are facing. Ignoring their situations can show a lack of compassion that bothers me greatly.

sir I don't think even remotely that abortion follows the golden rule, as I have stated.

The Golden Rule is directly opposed to Hitler's killing of the Jews. Obviously.

take a few minutes and watch the similarities with abortion and hitler:

Evolution is part of science. It has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. Hitler's moronic rationale on racism is not supported or excused by the science of evolution.

"You get treated like an animal long enough and that's what you become." -prince caspian (kill or be killed), (survival of the fittest, while tossing the golden rule out the window)

Or course, being a skeptic and all, I remain skeptical of the Theory of Evolution, although I do consider it to be a very sound theory.

this is sort of sad to me. A view that is perfect for a skeptic, cannot be adhered to, because they are skeptic, of even themselves. This is a perfect illustration of the vanity of skepticism. You are skeptical of even evolution itself. If that were me, I would fear lost, empty inside, and wishing there was more to life.

Well at this point, let me enter......Jesus. Jesus makes life more meaningful.[/QUOTE]

 

[createdtoworship]

Darwin by our standards was a racist, but he was very progressive for his time as most people back then were far worse, including many Christians. So your poining out racists has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, and darwanism, as close as there is to such a thing includes all of evolution, where is the racism in the idea that we all evolved from apes, ALL evolved, and while darwin started evolution we since have better understanding of it and how it all works. We don't rely on his beliefs in evolutin racist or not, modern evolution has little to do with what darwiwn thought was right or wrong.

but darwin used survival of the fittest to endorse the killing of african americans. Jesus said to love your enemies, if someone was hungry to give them bread, if someone needed a coat, give them your cloak also, if someone asked you to go one mile, go two miles. Jesus never endorsed the killing of people because they were an inferior race based on the color of their skin. Darwin did as I provide here:
Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

 

[loveofourlord]

no not too much generalization, just a basic generalization
Okay so fill in the blank......."it's okay to kill a baby in the womb when....."
I word it this way to cause serious consideration into the mass murder of living humans. There was even a bill that failed due to democrats that voted it down, that would refuse medical treatment to babies born alive, that failed to be aborted. So here we have a literal birth, and it's still treated as tissue not a human.
again fill in the blank "it's okay to kill a living baby in the womb when....." I pose this again, because we need to think of that being as living. Do you know what they do? They tear the baby apart using forceps or crush it's head, while alive. Or vacume it out in pieces. But realize they don't inject it to put it to sleep, the baby is literally tortured to death without anestesia. So yeah, saying it's a heated topic is an understatement, it's really a gross and wicked practice to say the least. Fill in the blank "it's ok to torture a living fetus when.....' The girl is raped? It's ok to torture a living fetus when someone is raped? Is that really what we are talking about? Well I would say, no. I disagree that we should rip a baby apart piece by piece simply because something happened to it's parent. Imagine if you mom was raped and murdered by a mass murderer. Does what happened to her, make your life worthless? Should the government come to your house and say, because your mom was murdered insensibly, you should therefore be murdered? Again I feel for a woman raped, I do. But all the more realize that perfectly good family units are waiting years for a baby to adopt and paying like 10,000 dollars to adopt. If there were more babies, the wait list would be less, and the process streamlined, and the fees lessened. If you can't adopt, foster care or at worse, go to the county. But are you really advocating that because a mother is raped, therefore her baby does not deserve to live? Again if your mother was raped and killed and you were an adult, should the state kill you?

sir I don't think even remotely that abortion follows the golden rule, as I have stated.


take a few minutes and watch the similarities with abortion and hitler:

"You get treated like an animal long enough and that's what you become." -prince caspian (kill or be killed), (survival of the fittest, while tossing the golden rule out the window)
this is sort of sad to me. A view that is perfect for a skeptic, cannot be adhered to, because they are skeptic, of even themselves. This is a perfect illustration of the vanity of skepticism. You are skeptical of even evolution itself. If that were me, I would fear lost, empty inside, and wishing there was more to life.

Well at this point, let me enter......Jesus. Jesus makes life more meaningful.

[/QUOTE]

Wishing and it being true are different things. We accept evolution because thats where the actual science leads. Oh and please don't bring that manipulative charlaton in to a otherwise proper conversation.

 

[loveofourlord]

but darwin used survival of the fittest to endorse the killing of african americans. Jesus said to love your enemies, if someone was hungry to give them bread, if someone needed a coat, give them your cloak also, if someone asked you to go one mile, go two miles. Jesus never endorsed the killing of people because they were an inferior race based on the color of their skin. Darwin did as I provide here:
Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

That sir is slander, so you better be able to back up the claim he endorsed the killing of blacks, unless it's that quote you said before whgere he was doing no such thing, he was talking about the reality of the situation and how that was the trend things were going towards. Maybe before you speak on a subject you should have more then a kindergarten understanding of the subject. All you've given so far are tons of creationist common lies, so common they arn't even used much these days.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wishing and it being true are different things. We accept evolution because thats where the actual science leads. Oh and please don't bring that manipulative charlaton in to a otherwise proper conversation.[/QUOTE]
well just prove it, or at least provide observational data that macro evolution between two differenty types of animals is true. Provide a hybrid between dogs and whales, or dinasaurs and birds , or between human like and ape like creatures. So far, all you say is the science leads to evolution being true, but have not actually provided documentation. This begs the question as to the validity of evolution, and uses a band wagon fallacy....that because everyone believes something that it is therefore true. Remember a hundred years ago the majority of scientists believe maggots spontaneously generated on rotting flesh. Now scientists believe living cells spontaneously generated in a primordial ooze, bringing life. I guess I don't see it as science at all, just opinions. A theory needs basic observable data, and there is none.

 

[createdtoworship]

That sir is slander, so you better be able to back up the claim he endorsed the killing of blacks, unless it's that quote you said before whgere he was doing no such thing, he was talking about the reality of the situation and how that was the trend things were going towards. Maybe before you speak on a subject you should have more then a kindergarten understanding of the subject. All you've given so far are tons of creationist common lies, so common they arn't even used much these days.

Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

 

[createdtoworship]

Maybe before you speak on a subject you should have more then a kindergarten understanding of the subject.

oh and thank you for proving my OP theory that skeptics are mean. This is a good example. Thank you.

 

[loveofourlord]

Wishing and it being true are different things. We accept evolution because thats where the actual science leads. Oh and please don't bring that manipulative charlaton in to a otherwise proper conversation.

well just prove it, or at least provide observational data that macro evolution between two differenty types of animals is true. Provide a hybrid between dogs and whales, or dinasaurs and birds , or between human like and ape like creatures. So far, all you say is the science leads to evolution being true, but have not actually provided documentation. This begs the question as to the validity of evolution, and uses a band wagon fallacy....that because everyone believes something that it is therefore true. Remember a hundred years ago the majority of scientists believe maggots spontaneously generated on rotting flesh. Now scientists believe living cells spontaneously generated in a primordial ooze, bringing life. I guess I don't see it as science at all, just opinions. A theory needs basic observable data, and there is none.[/QUOTE]

lets see.

First HA!!!!....thats funny shows you know nothing about evolution.

dinosaurs and birds, ingoring thats like saying between wolves and mammals but fine, microraptor, archeorapteryx, this guy https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/12/08/dinosaur_tail/06_dinosaur_tail.jpg

humans and ape....well humans are apes, but australapithicus, neanderthal.

there is a difference between fully formed living beings and the precursors for life forming, which has been shown to be doable.

 

[loveofourlord]

oh and thank you for proving my OP theory that skeptics are mean. This is a good example. Thank you.

you sir have no grounds to speak when trying to insinuate multiple times here that evolution is about racism, and such, you've been very rude, and condescending multiple times.

 

[createdtoworship]

well just prove it, or at least provide observational data that macro evolution between two differenty types of animals is true. Provide a hybrid between dogs and whales, or dinasaurs and birds , or between human like and ape like creatures. So far, all you say is the science leads to evolution being true, but have not actually provided documentation. This begs the question as to the validity of evolution, and uses a band wagon fallacy....that because everyone believes something that it is therefore true. Remember a hundred years ago the majority of scientists believe maggots spontaneously generated on rotting flesh. Now scientists believe living cells spontaneously generated in a primordial ooze, bringing life. I guess I don't see it as science at all, just opinions. A theory needs basic observable data, and there is none.

lets see.

First HA!!!!....thats funny shows you know nothing about evolution.

dinosaurs and birds, ingoring thats like saying between wolves and mammals but fine, microraptor, archeorapteryx, this guy https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/12/08/dinosaur_tail/06_dinosaur_tail.jpg

humans and ape....well humans are apes, but australapithicus, neanderthal.

there is a difference between fully formed living beings and the precursors for life forming, which has been shown to be doable.

sir neanderthal is a human. Australopithecus is a small ape, I have looked at fossil remains of lucy, and there is not human ilium bone. They were not bipeds. There is sooo much misinformation out that it's really sad, I can show you photographs if you want. So that takes care of two of the three evidences you provide as transitions. Can you provide evidence the third is valid, go ahead. I don't use websites as valid truth. Websites are biased in favor of evolution, so you must quote scientific journals, and preferably ones with the conclusion on the abstract matching the said theory.

 

[loveofourlord]

sir neanderthal is a human. Australopithecus is a small ape, I have looked at fossil remains of lucy, and there is not human ilium bone. They were not bipeds. There is sooo much misinformation out that it's really sad, I can show you photographs if you want. So that takes care of two of the three evidences you provide as transitions. Can you provide evidence the third is valid, go ahead. I don't use websites as valid truth. Websites are biased in favor of evolution, so you must quote scientific journals, and preferably ones with the conclusion on the abstract matching the said theory.

yeah all dozens of neanderthal are human, including some of their DNA, but your right they are human and not at all different, same with australapithicus is multiple specimens found all showing differences from apes, but keep at it. Keep reposting the same lies that were debunked years ago.

You didn't take care of anything as you were ignorant of the information, the fact you brought up lucy alone shows you think she's the only case. Keep trying, and you didn't deal with microraptor, archeorapteryx or the dinosaur tail I showed you with feathers.

 

[createdtoworship]

yeah all dozens of neanderthal are human, including some of their DNA, but your right they are human and not at all different, same with australapithicus is multiple specimens found all showing differences from apes, but keep at it. Keep reposting the same lies that were debunked years ago.

You didn't take care of anything as you were ignorant of the information,

Sir if you keep goading me I will have to cut this conversation short, I have plenty of evidence so far all you do is mock and not debate, so I have not even got started with all this. All though I do appreciate proving my OP that skeptics as soon as someone disagrees with them, then turn from being nice into being rude. Because Christians have a commandment to love their enemies, but you don't have a motive for being nice. So there is that. So all this falls incredibly in line with my OP, thank you. I originally was running out of illustrations of the OP, and now I have a few more examples of how a skeptic mocks.

the fact you brought up lucy alone shows you think she's the only case. Keep trying, and you didn't deal with microraptor, archeorapteryx or the dinosaur tail I showed you with feathers.

again you can say mocroraptor is a transition, and I can say leprachauns exist. We just need validation, photos's of fossils proving it or peer review.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sir if you keep goading me I will have to cut this conversation short, I have plenty of evidence so far all you do is mock and not debate, so I have not even got started with all this. All though I do appreciate proving my OP that skeptics as soon as someone disagrees with them, then turn from being nice into being rude. Because Christians have a commandment to love their enemies, but you don't have a motive for being nice. So there is that. So all this falls incredibly in line with my OP, thank you. I originally was running out of illustrations of the OP, and now I have a few more examples of how a skeptic mocks.

again you can say mocroraptor is a transition, and I can say leprachauns exist. We just need validation, photos's of fossils proving it or peer review.

please stop with the false piety, you've been rude multiple times in this conversation, including your constant trying to link evolution to racism, so you lose any attempts to be polite from that. And it's not rude to say someone is ignorant on a subject, I'm ignorant of many things, but I don't go around trying to act as if my lack of knowledge is some how evidence against something. I gave you the evidence you can take it what you want, and funny how you ignore the best evidence we have the dinosaur tail, how typical.

 

[createdtoworship]

please stop with the false piety, you've been rude multiple times in this conversation, including your constant trying to link evolution to racism,

sir again I have never said evolution is racist, please stop saying that. I said the idea of "survival of the fittest" was originally used in racist settings to endorse the killing of african americans as inferior species.

so you lose any attempts to be polite from that.

well also saying abortion is morally depraved is not being rude. Just see the video above, it will change your stance on abortion in about a half hour.

And it's not rude to say someone is ignorant on a subject, I'm ignorant of many things, but I don't go around trying to act as if my lack of knowledge is some how evidence against something.

I do have a bad memory, but I have debated this topic for 15 years, I have debated biologists, chemists, astronomers, physicists. And even tracked down Kevin Henke who was writing technical papers against YEC, and debated him. So again yes I do have a poor memory. But I have been around for awhile with this topic, so just be nice, and don't be so arrogant.

I gave you the evidence you can take it what you want, and funny how you ignore the best evidence we have the dinosaur tail, how typical.

you got pictures or peer review?

 

[loveofourlord]

sir again I have never said evolution is racist, please stop saying that. I said the idea of "survival of the fittest" was originally used in racist settings to endorse the killing of african americans as inferior species.
well also saying abortion is morally depraved is not being rude. Just see the video above, it will change your stance on abortion in about a half hour.
I do have a bad memory, but I have debated this topic for 15 years, I have debated biologists, chemists, astronomers, physicists. And even tracked down Kevin Henke who was writing technical papers against YEC, and debated him. So again yes I do have a poor memory. But I have been around for awhile with this topic, so just be nice, and don't be so arrogant.
you got pictures or peer review?

what do you think the link was?

 

[createdtoworship]

what do you think the link was?

so again point to where this picture proves it is a transition between to genra of animals.... (again we need documentation in the form of pictures or peer review)

 

[loveofourlord]

so again point to where this picture proves it is a transition between to genra of animals.... (again we need documentation in the form of pictures or peer review)
View attachment 273787

it's a dinosaur tail with feathers, as predicted by evolution don't get much clearer then that.

 

[VirOptimus]

it's a dinosaur tail with feathers, as predicted by evolution don't get much clearer then that.

Reason wont work, he thinks conservapedia is a credible source.

 

[createdtoworship]

it's a dinosaur tail with feathers, as predicted by evolution don't get much clearer then that.

so dinosaurs represent a wide range of creatures, some flew yes. But that is no more a transitional form between dino's and birds, as TREX is a transition between a dino's and the modern alligators. You can instantly see the flawed logic. You can make unlimited connections, but it ultimately needs proof. Which we don't currently have. Using phylogenetics is subjective, because it relies on evolutionary bias to operate. It has presumed evolution true, and creates trees linking said organisms. But you cannot presume it true, then use that same presumption to prove it. That is circular reasoning. That is why I go back to taxonomy.

 

[loveofourlord]

so dinosaurs represent a wide range of creatures, some flew yes. But that is no more a transitional form between dino's and birds, as TREX is a transition between a dino's and the modern alligators. You can instantly see the flawed logic. You can make unlimited connections, but it ultimately needs proof. Which we don't currently have. Using phylogenetics is subjective, because it relies on evolutionary bias to operate. It has presumed evolution true, and creates trees linking said organisms. But you cannot presume it true, then use that same presumption to prove it. That is circular reasoning. That is why I go back to taxonomy.

....you say some dinosaurs flew and then say they didn't become birds, so which dinosaurs flew? *laughs* for a second I missread what you said and thought you were saying t-rex WAS a transitional form with a crocodile :> I was going to say thats a new one...

And you obviously don't know the meaning of proof, explain why the dinosaurs that evolved into birds acording to evolution would magickally and randomly just happen to have feathers if they are not related, it behooves you to explain why it both doesn't work for evolution but fits creationism. Should also point out, we knew therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds before we started finding feathered dinosaurs, if you can't take that as evidence then you are exactly what your acusing skeptics of being, your just a denialist and a cynic.