Aron-Ra said:
Every religion claims to "know" that theirs is the right religion and that theirs is the one true god. But the fact is none of you really knows what you pretend to.
Well they can be tested and GOd of the Bible said to do just that.
No, the Bible says never to question it. The only proof the Bible offers requires that you assume its conclusion at the onset and never test it. Every claim made by any religion can either never be vindicated or disproved, or they have already been disproved both scientifically and in a court of law.
BUT again you dont or wont see the evedence because you have already decided it is nonsence. the bible prophecies are real. saying nostrodomes made just as good of onces is stupid.
Nostradamos' prophesies failed just like those in the Bible did. But we were talking about evidence. I will never ignore evidence the way all creationists must. So what could you actually show me?
For one most all creationist believe in evolution, its the theory they have problems with.
What's the difference? There is the fact that it happens, and then there is the theory which explains how it happens; genetic drift, natural selection, etc. Are you saying you have another explanation for how it happens?
even evolutionist in the beggining made very dumb(looking back from now) finding that were way off but didnt seem so then. over the years they fine tuned it and supposedly got it correct. dont creationist get the same time to hone there ideas.
It wouldn't matter how much time you had, because you can't "get it correct" until you find the parts that are "way off". How would you propose to do that?
Of course if there liars i suppose they dont. My knowledge is based on what i learn AND what i experience.
And what you could not actually experience, but only assume, and assume with complete conviction without reservation, and without justification.
YOu BELIEVE in things we can never no for sure. thats why it is a theory and not fact. which goes for all the other theories. we are fairly certain BUT cant 100% say it is fact. SO there is BELIEF in it.
Once again, you prove that you still don't know what a theory is, despite how many times so many of us have repeatedly explained this to you. A theory is both the study of facts and the explanation of those facts. Is gravity "just" a theory? Is atomic theory a fact?
And your version of "belief" is completely different from mine. You have a desperate, emotional and unreasonable need to believe what you do, and your belief is rigid, never to change no matter how wrong you're proven to be -despite the fact that it is assumed erroneously and entirely without evidentiary support. But everything I "believe" is tentative, subject to obligate change as the evidence demands. I have no special attachment to anything I believe, and all of it is based only on things we
are sure about.
The difference between us is that I want to find out where the errors in my perspective are, and you don't.
All avenues of agriculture would be severely effected, and medical science would be destroyed.
hardly, prove it. And i said the theory not evolution which is what they use NOT the theory.
Once again, what is the difference? The "theory" explains how certain strains of viruses can develop a resistance to certain drugs. Without the theory, all you would have is a collection of facts which no one understands. Selective breeding would be a crap shoot, and would be fruitless and ridiculous as showing striped patterns to pregnant cows and hoping that will cause them to bare striped calves. See, that's why you need the theory.
I know what a theory is, telling me i dont over and over because i dont get the exact deff. correct wont convince me i dont.
You not only fail at the "exact" definition, but you're not even in the ballbark. That's why I ask questions which, were you to actually answer them, would engage you to think about this properly and better help you understand.
it could, but i know a lot of very smart people who just dont seem to get it.
So do I. But this isn't really an issue of being smart, but of being honest. There has never been even one claim made in support of creationism that was actually correct, not one -ever. And many creationists claim things they already know are wrong. Doesn't that mean anything to you?
YOur insistance that MOST christians are evolutionist .... is silly and based on nothing reliable. POLLS suck they do not work and are not consitant and are VERY easy to manipulate. SO saying it over and over is pointless unless to brainwash one into believing something.
I think you say that "polls suck" only because they never ever agree with you. Does saying they "suck" count as a valid counter-argument in your world? Yes, they are easy to manipulate. But I listed a series of polls from a number of different organizations which all included the exact questions given. Could you cite or source or conduct a poll to counter what I have already provided? Is there any way you think you defend the notion that creationists are somehow in the majority even though you know already that they cannot be?
Is that the same way that all those Catholics in Latin America "experienced" their visitation by the holy madonna? How is it that Hindus claim to have experienced lord, Krishna? How is it they think they know him personally? What about all these other religious "experiences" among native American shaman, european witches, or polytheists of the Orient? Are they all "experiencing" their unique gods and spirits? Or are they only imagining these things just like you are?
there is a devil or decever among us, at leasst if you believe in scripture.
And if such a thing really exists, then it likely wrote the Bible to promote its own lies. But then, there was never any reason to believe anything in scripture, and no possible motivation for any such "devil" anyway. So its all too absurd to take any of it seriously.
As for the holy madonna its obviouse if you read scripture there wrong.
Really? How so? And which scriptures are you talking about? Because I've read the Bhagavad Gita and the Avestas of Zarathustra, and I havent seen anything there which specifically forbids any such apparition. Nor would any man-made fable have that much authority anyway.
the others is to me the same as emotional preachers its easy to get some people to experience something when they are ralled up in some way or another. And yes they may be experiencing there god, who is probably the prince of the air, or the devil or demons how ever you wish to believe them to be. there is more then one SPIRIT with us. NOt that you believe any of that.
So you may be experiencing another god, or a deceptive devil, who wants you to believe you're experiencing something or someone else?
I dont nor do creationist deny science they merely interpret it differently and it is MOSTLY ALL about the theory of evolution which is a SMALL part of it all. You are just merely given the theory more then its due.
You do deny science, and not just the conclusions of science but its methods as well. For example, science is rational meaning that, while many things may be possible, nothing can be posatively stated to exist without substantial objectively-verifiable and posatively-indicative evidence for it. What such evidence do you have for -anything- you believe?
Science insists that every potential explanation also be potentially falisifiable. What experiments could we perform which could disprove anything you believe -if what you believe happens to be wrong?
The very definition of science also requires that only natural explanations can be given for all natural phenomenon. The principle of methodological naturalism was designed to prevent people from just using magic as an excuse instead of trying to discover the real answers. Consequently, that principle has many many times revealed great truths about the natural world. But you're still insisting that djinni-like magic should count as an explanation, and that all evidence to the contrary should be ignored. This too is forbidden by science.
Science also mandates the process of peer-review to scrutinize and test all assumptions and proposed explanations. The purpose of this of course is to be sure that mere subjective opinions be eliminated and that all frauds, falsehoods, fallacies and failures be exposed. If creationists did that, the whole movement would disappear entirely overnight, because that's all your troup ever had.
Science rejects authority, questions all assumptions, and is the functional antithesis of faith, the very opposite of everything that creationism is or does. In short, you and other creationists do indeed reject all scientific methodology.
evolution is not the same thing as atheism, and creationism is damned sure not the same thing as Christianity.
the theory not evolution. I would say that the theory of evolution is not the same thing as science. just a part of it or uses it.
What are you talking about? And be specific. How does one distinguish any theory from the facts it explains?
my position isn't even a belief. Yours is definitely. But mine is not. My position is more of a philosophy concerned with how one might pursue truth. You'd rather not do that, and simply pretend like you already know what the truth is -despite the fact that you're proven wrong on every point every time.
It is in some ways maybe not more then mine.
What?
IO pursue truth wh ich is why i am hesitent to except something that goes against my faith.
You're contradicting yourself here. Faith is an obstacle in the pursuit of truth because it is an insistance that all your initial assumptions are still absolutely right no matter how wrong all of them appear to be.
ITs not excluding science its excluding HOw things came to be. BIG difference.
There's no difference at all. I challenge you to defend your allegation. How is it different? And how are you not excluding science?
Your insisnt at saying i am wrong 100% of the time is just brain washing. isnt working. might work on kids but not me.
I suppose from your faith-based perspective that anyone trying to reason with you must be dismissed as brain-washing -because that's what creationism is. That's why it relies entirely on fear and false propaganda.
funny if truth is what you want and should provail why not tewll kids that there is a different view. if the truth is out there this would prove the theory truer than just force feeding it to them telling them there is no other idea out there.
There isn't any other scientific view. Evolution is the only theory of biodiversity there is or ever was. It is the only option ever proposed with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. There isn't any aspect of creationism which meets any of the criteria required to qualify as theory. In fact, creationism can't even count as an hypothesis. Creationism literally amounts to nothing more than an indefensible assertion with nothing to base it on or back it up. That is the truth. Creationism is neither sustainable nor logical in any sense.
You see, the real difference is this; some of us have a desperate need-to-believe, and some of us have instead only a desire to understand Theistic evolutionists have both. But they separate their untestable spiritual assumptions from their analysis of the facts and hypotheses of the natural world -because it is impossible to either support or disprove the supernatural, and such things can only be assumed on faith in lieu of evidence anyway. Yet they still believe that God is in control of all the seemingly random events of our lives, and they see evolution in the same light; that it, like every other system in nature, is part of God's design.
bla bla bla. must mean the thoery is not all that convinsing enough to take out God.
For those desperate to believe, no amount of reason can sway them. And the theory was never supposed to take out God either. But what is there that would ever be "convincing" about God?
you dont know much about the bible as you think. the rest is bla bla bla. and i have run out of time to answer them. i will try later.
No you won't. Its "bla bla bla" to you because you won't let yourself understand any of it. If you ever intend to answer anything, let's be systematic and start with just this simple question, one you keep avoiding; what is an ape?
