Honest Question

[razzelflabben]

Challenging each others' beliefs, be they about politics, music, religion, favourite milkshake etc. is everyday experience (for most of us). Why would anyone mind being challenged, unless they have some emotional attachment to their belief combined with an underlying insecurity concerning its veracity?

Personally I want to challenged. How can learning take place without it?

Peter

got to applaud you on that one....

 

[razzelflabben]

i dont think you are following - I don't object to being challenged but everyone will object to being made to change their belief.

awesome reason for the schools to present the science and leave the "logical" conclusions to the individuals....

 

[plindboe]

i dont think you are following - I don't object to being challenged but everyone will object to being made to change their belief.

I'm pretty sure Federerfan meant good ole debating, as it's not really possible to force people to change their beliefs. I also tend to think the best of people, so I'm assuming that he didn't have any fascist ideas in mind when he wrote his post.

Peter

 

[marktheblake]

I'm pretty sure Federerfan meant good ole debating, as it's not really possible to force people to change their beliefs. I also tend to think the best of people, so I'm assuming that he didn't have any fascist ideas in mind when he wrote his post.

Peter

Well i just checked his post again, cant agree with you - he was far too explicit.

It is pretty clear that he is coming from a position that he is absolutely right, and the other side is absolutely wrong which is simply a personal prejudice. I wouldn't say that is fascist or even deliberate though.

 

[atomweaver]

It is pretty clear that he is coming from a position that he is absolutely right, and the other side is absolutely wrong which is simply a personal prejudice.

Actually, the prejudice is evidential, not personal; one position has consistent evidence supporting it, one does not. A separate issue is whether or not one values consistent evidence...

 

[plindboe]

Well i just checked his post again, cant agree with you - he was far too explicit.

It is pretty clear that he is coming from a position that he is absolutely right, and the other side is absolutely wrong which is simply a personal prejudice. I wouldn't say that is fascist or even deliberate though.

It seems like you don't want disagreeing people to be too sure of themselves, and you don't want them to be trying to change your beliefs, yet you also don't mind being challenged.

You sure confuse me. Ah well, I made my point in #59, so my job is done here.

Peter

 

[razzelflabben]

Actually, the prejudice is evidential, not personal; one position has consistent evidence supporting it, one does not. A separate issue is whether or not one values consistent evidence...

unfortunately, the evidence supports both for the most part.

 

[marktheblake]

It seems like you don't want disagreeing people to be too sure of themselves

How would you feel if someone was trying to make you change what you beleive?

It is an honest question.

 

[plindboe]

How would you feel if someone was trying to make you change what you beleive?

It is an honest question.

I wouldn't mind that at all.

That's what I talked about in post #59. When people of other beliefs try to challenge me, they are essentially trying to change my beliefs and replace them with theirs. I don 't have a problem with that at all, it's everyday experience for people to try to convince each others of their respective ideas.

Peter

 

[random325nicaea]

There is some awesome sermons being delivered in this thread.
The only problem is sermons make me fall asleep.



How would you feel if someone tried to make you change what you beleive?

i'd applaud them.
and i'd change my belief if he the case in question was presented well enough.

any other questions?

 

[razzelflabben]

i'd applaud them.
and i'd change my belief if he the case in question was presented well enough.

any other questions?

The problem is that I have yet to see anyone present a compelling case for either side of this issue...of course, I haven't talked to everyone yet, but so far, I haven't seen them. Which is why my "arguments" are so different from the usual ones, gives people pause to think for themselves rather than just issuing the same dry, boring, non convincing arguments that are always used. Ah well, way to many people in this world are content to follow the crowd rather than think and reason for themselves. It's life I guess...

 

[random325nicaea]

"but you still haven't shown any evidence that massive floods are not part of our world.."

what?
did you not understand it?
there is no evidence that any such flood happened in the time period you claimed (during humanity's existence).
because if the re WAS evidence, it would look like the things i described.
a pattern found in genome distribution.

" the flood could have been universal or massive local"

universal is impossible. that's what the physics, geography and the quantity of water says.

massively local isn't a measure of scale.

be more precise.
200km^2 or 200000 km^2 (these can both be "massively local", depending the locality.

"the only absolute on the issue was that all of mankind except one family was wiped out."

which is a claim we can test for.
retrace the genes, and start looking in the layer of that time.
it's so easy.

and when we do that, behold, no flood.
btw, the mitocondrial eve thingy, that was a loooong time ago, long before any communities or herding was done, let alone reciting oral traditions depicting these.

" To which you went off on your little tyrant about the flood and some nonsense about no massive floods were possible."

i didn't say "no"
i said "no ones in the tiem period and the scale you claim it was".
please read more carefully.

"your posts still hold a lot of venom of which I will go no further until it is gone."

your post don't bring any evidence, i'm beginning to suspect this entire "venom" thingy is just a cheap, "i don't have any evidence so i'll resort to "im being violated""

either stop with this, or you admit you have nothing.

make claims, and provide evidence.

". Now if you want to show through evidence how massive floods are not part of our world,"

your strawmaning me here, i didn't say "none, evah!"
i said (paraphrased) "not in the form, scale or timeperiod you claim it to be in"

"I would be happy to listen and consider what you offer,"

you have repeatedly shown yourself unwilling or incapable when problems with your claims are presented.

"however, we know first hand that massive floods can and do happen, so you have a long uphill battle ahead of you...."

hint*
one flood, say...600mil years ago, doesn't mean your claim is true.

"right, like you believe that there could not be a massive flood, of which observation says your wrong, massive floods can and do happen."

same as above.

"...so either you are trying to reinvent what I said"

i won't even bother, your doing a fine enough job at that yourself.
i outline spefics, you ignore that and go for the general or universal.
please quit doing that.

"or you don't believe the very science we see everyday."

the very science you have NOT presented?

"Which is it, still blinded by your prejudice or not willing to accept the science we see everyday? "

which is is, putting up evidence for the claim you have, or admitting you have nothing?

which is it, willingness to exchange data and idea despite of your, or an opponants apparent idea's, or resorting to a abuse claim when you're unwilling to provide supportign evidence?

"The only timeline I offered was after man appeared on the earth...."

which is somehtign we can test for.
and no floods there that could have reduced a spread out population to 1 family that was capable fo recitign oral traditions depictign farming and husbandry.

"|which evidence shows we still have massive floods, after man's appearance on the earth"

1)provide said evidence.
2) any of those floods did not reduce the human population to 8 induviduals.
becasue if they HAD, we'd see the genetic evidence corraborated with the geology.

"the only size I offered was massive"

which in essence is saying it was "big....to an ant".

" I didn't answer the question so that I knew whether you were listening or using more venom."

aaaaaaccctually you DID answer the question.
you see, using genome sequencing, and archeological data you can backtrack to where populations originated and how they spread.
so all you have to do is give me a "when" and i can tell you the size range you're looking for. (presuming ofc you still believe this flood whiped out everyone, but one 8 person family.)

let me put this in your own words: "You failed!" at trying to make me look ignorant.

oh that, and you made yourself look foolish by saying you "told me what you believed" and then failed, from your words, to specify exactly what.
in essence you admit to giving me squat to debate you on.

"evidence to support that according to the text it could be either universal or massive local? Wow, just read the text. "

what? the bible?
i mean the actual tangeable evidence (lets say a geological servey of the mesopotamia region), not some written or spoken words.

"I never once stated where I stood on the issue of flood, only that the bible could be interpreted either way...what my personal beliefs are, are still confined to my personal beliefs. You are reading into my posts what is not there so that you can unleash your venom without cause. I personally will keep my beliefs private until the venom ceases for this very reason."

...lawl....
you will not tell me your beliefs, because i am angry with you for not telling me your beliefs...

what joy...

"exactly, now your catching on, and I won't tell you anymore until I see you attempting to listen, "

I AM LISTENING, you're just refusing to tell.

" not just unleash your displeasure of anothers beliefs. "

ehm, no. you seem to misunderstand freedom of speech or critical thinking.
critizism and critcal thinking =/= displeasure.
outlining problems with certain claims=/= displeasure.
giving you an outline of what supporting evidence would look like, and then observing the absence of it =/= displeasure.

"the site was offered as evidence that those who oppose you, use much of the same evidence only interpret it differently."

what site again, you linked a few.

"Your anger is clouding your understanding of what is being said. "

no it's not. it's just so freakishly simple to see the problems with the claims they make.

global flood = there is enough water to cover the entire earth
=> either:
-there where no prominent mountain at the time of the flood
-we lost most of the water :
->where did this water come from?
-ect, (this is where you start to get into all the standard debunks. regardign strata and the like)

now lets evaluate a local flood:
local flood= distinct strata layers combined with hydrolic sortign and large amounts of fossils in a large area, distinct patterns in the allele distribution in flora and fauna.

now that we have an idea of what the evidence should look like.

gimmi your evidence!

"that people who are so angry with one group will read into anything someone says that is not in total agreement with their beliefs as more of the same."

you do realize the INCREDIBLE irony with readign that from you.
with all the " your just spewing what you're taught" and "i won't tell you untill you stop asking me to tell you" (paraphrased).

" IOW's evidence of the past shows that people with your mindset will take a comment like "I believe God did it...""

apparently you don't seem to understand that ""I believe God did it...""
is saying "magic!", untill you specify what natural porcesses he used, but then you admit he wasn't nessecary at all, and thus actually put your position in a bit of a pickle.

EG:
-"i believe god makes it rain via condensation"

-"i believe it rains because of condensation."

"so don't listen to me, listen to him and place his beliefs on me"

i am listening you're just refusing to TELL ME.

" but don't apply the arguments of someone else to me and call it mine."

you make a claim, then provide no evidence. i examine the claim and determine what the supporting evidence would look like. then i go and point out the absence of such evidence.

wow, so much for me presuming you believe things you don't .

" so if you want to discuss my personal beliefs, get rid of the attitude."

mm vicious circle...

the venom is because you never told me what you believe.
in al fairness. you made the claim of existance, you are hold the burden of proof.

you have to tell me, so that i may stop "spewing venom".

i'd have thought you might have gotten this now.

"I said you didn't explain the ToE in terms a child could understand,"

you want to try and explain natural selection and speciation without using hard words? be my guest and show me. i'll verify if you're actually depictign it right....i am after all going to using it on a day to day basis with my study.

".but when offered the same of evolutionists,"

1) "evidence" you provided could have been busted bay bachelor in the relevant fields. in essence, the creationists are lying about the scientific community lying.

"I was limited to only peer review and nothing more,"

that's because if you DID peer review the articles about creationists you'd see that they don't actually pass the test. lying about lying.
have you actually looked deeper into the claims where the "evolutionists lied"?
did you run a fact check on every such accusation?

because that's what peer review does.
if you lie in peer review, you don't get published.
if you don't know, you say you don't know.

"all the time you present non peer review evidence for the creationist."

show me one peer reviewed study supporting creationism.
oh w8, they don't allow their studies to be peer reviewed.

oh and for the record, a creationist physisist writing an excellant paper on thermo mechanics, doesn't mean his article supports creationism. (because i can see a way you show me a list of creationists who published articles through peer review, but who's articles in the end have nothing to do with evolution, or creationism.

" That is a double standard perion."
no, it's a freakishly funny case of "we can't get what we want to say published through a communal system, so we put up our own system and accuse the other system of conspiracy".

" I suggested you don't do that,"

aaah..yes you DID say that.

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. ?

"but hey, you just keep proving my point about venom so have at it."

but hey i think i just might have gotten you here.

"again no, what I claimed is that all you see when someone says creationist is the extemist YEC."

nooo, i repeatedly explained to you that i know there are many forms of creationism YEC, OEC (4.5 bil, but god made life/humans/phyla, here are many variations on this form), DAC, and also a myriad of other people who take other creationist myths literally. srly...you're accusing me of ignorance when i can easily demonstrate, and have, that i do know.

"I get your complaint, what you lack is evidence that you don't put every creationist in that box..."

read above.
----------------
but recap here.
you accuse me of not know all the evidence, i ask you to provide more evidence, while i outline my criticues of all the other evidence i DO know of. you the refuse to give me any more new evidence because i placed criticues on the evidence i criticued. result, i keep asking you for evidence, and you keep refusing to give it to me.

do you not see the vicious circle you put me in, by not coming out in the very beginning?

 

[random325nicaea]

The problem is that I have yet to see anyone present a compelling case for either side of this issue

then i suggest you grab a few articles which lead to the current consensus within the scientific community.

Which is why my "arguments" are so different from the usual ones,

i agree with those " there.

all you said that both sided are supported, yet you failed to explain how.

oh and before you try. if the current consensus wasn't supported, it wouldn't be there.

Ah well, way to many people in this world are content to follow the crowd rather than think and reason for themselves. It's life I guess...

am i sensing a slight "everything anti-creationism is just because of the appeal to authority of the scientific community" here?

if so,
well....****whale

 

[razzelflabben]

"but you still haven't shown any evidence that massive floods are not part of our world.."

what?
did you not understand it?
there is no evidence that any such flood happened in the time period you claimed (during humanity's existence).
because if the re WAS evidence, it would look like the things i described.
a pattern found in genome distribution.

What I am claiming is that according to the text, the flood in question which by the way is not part of the theory of creation or creation story whichever you prefer...could have been either world wide or massive local. Your claim has and here once again is that there is no evidence that any such flood happened. Therefore, if you are responding to me and not just responding to your bias, you are saying that there is no evidence of massive floods since the time man appeared on the earth...I personally beg to differ, sighting all kinds of massive floods we have witnessed with our own eyes, but let the evidence speak for itself, look up massive floods on the internet. Remember, I told you I would not talk in more detail until you were able to respond to me not your bias.

" the flood could have been universal or massive local"

universal is impossible. that's what the physics, geography and the quantity of water says.

But, what I said is not that either happened, but rather that the text would allow for either, therefore if one or the other happens, it fits the story, the evidence has to falsify on the results, not the size. That is the point.

massively local isn't a measure of scale.

right, which is why the size is not part of the equasion, only the results are. The text specified effects, not size.

be more precise.
200km^2 or 200000 km^2 (these can both be "massively local", depending the locality.

when your ready to talk to me, not just the people you hate.

"the only absolute on the issue was that all of mankind except one family was wiped out."

which is a claim we can test for.
retrace the genes, and start looking in the layer of that time.
it's so easy.

and when we do that, behold, no flood.
btw, the mitocondrial eve thingy, that was a loooong time ago, long before any communities or herding was done, let alone reciting oral traditions depicting these.

and yet science can trace, through genetics, mankind back to one woman, interesting isn't it....

" To which you went off on your little tyrant about the flood and some nonsense about no massive floods were possible."

i didn't say "no"
i said "no ones in the tiem period and the scale you claim it was".
please read more carefully.

what is my claim????? My claim is that the text does not specify the size of the flood only the results...when will you drop the hatred and deal with me?

"your posts still hold a lot of venom of which I will go no further until it is gone."

your post don't bring any evidence, i'm beginning to suspect this entire "venom" thingy is just a cheap, "i don't have any evidence so i'll resort to "im being violated""

why not drop the venom and find out?

either stop with this, or you admit you have nothing.

it's easy to test, drop the venom and find out what I have to offer by dealing with me not your prejudices...

make claims, and provide evidence.

". Now if you want to show through evidence how massive floods are not part of our world,"

your strawmaning me here, i didn't say "none, evah!"
i said (paraphrased) "not in the form, scale or timeperiod you claim it to be in"

my claim is that the text does not specify world wide or massive local, so where are you getting the rest of this if not from the venomous bias you are bringing to this discussion.

"I would be happy to listen and consider what you offer,"

you have repeatedly shown yourself unwilling or incapable when problems with your claims are presented.

what claim? I haven't made any real claims yet....see the problem with coming with hatred instead of an open mind, you don't even know that I made no claim yet.

"...so either you are trying to reinvent what I said"

i won't even bother, your doing a fine enough job at that yourself.
i outline spefics, you ignore that and go for the general or universal.
please quit doing that.

all I've done so far is correct your assumptions about what the text really says.

"or you don't believe the very science we see everyday."

the very science you have NOT presented?

as of yet, there have been no claims by me that need scienctific evidence, unless it is that massive floods happen in our world...need I really evidence that, have you not ever been involved in a real flood? How about New Orleans for a start, the science of that flood alone, would be enough to evidence the claims I have made.

"The only timeline I offered was after man appeared on the earth...."

which is somehtign we can test for.

right, start with New Orleans

and no floods there that could have reduced a spread out population to 1 family that was capable fo recitign oral traditions depictign farming and husbandry.

who said anything about a spread out pop.? Apparently your prejudice is still in the way of what I said.

"|which evidence shows we still have massive floods, after man's appearance on the earth"

1)provide said evidence.

New Orleans...

2) any of those floods did not reduce the human population to 8 induviduals.

yet genetics takes all mankind back to one woman...

which in essence is saying it was "big....to an ant".

thus, hard to disprove using science, huh, and yet you try....

aaaaaaccctually you DID answer the question.
you see, using genome sequencing, and archeological data you can backtrack to where populations originated and how they spread.
so all you have to do is give me a "when" and i can tell you the size range you're looking for. (presuming ofc you still believe this flood whiped out everyone, but one 8 person family.)

ah, there in lies the problem, I have not laid out any personal beliefs yet...and yet you insist you can evidence me wrong...that is pure prejudice of which I will Not participate.

let me put this in your own words: "You failed!" at trying to make me look ignorant.

When did I try to make you look ignorante? All I said was you need to listen to someone other than yourself.

oh that, and you made yourself look foolish by saying you "told me what you believed" and then failed, from your words, to specify exactly what.
in essence you admit to giving me squat to debate you on.

I told you that I was a skeptic, so now your claim is that skeptics don't exist? Got evidence to back that one up?

global flood = there is enough water to cover the entire earth
=> either:
-there where no prominent mountain at the time of the flood
-we lost most of the water :
->where did this water come from?
-ect, (this is where you start to get into all the standard debunks. regardign strata and the like)

If you were listening to me and not your own bias, you would know that the flood is not included in this discussion because it is not dealing with the story of creation, but rather the story of the flood. So even in your insistance that we discuss the flood you show your prejudice getting in the way of your listening to what anyone has to say or offer.

you make a claim, then provide no evidence. i examine the claim and determine what the supporting evidence would look like. then i go and point out the absence of such evidence.

you still haven't dealt with any of the claims I made, only the claims you want me to make.

the venom is because you never told me what you believe.

the venom has been coming from your posts since you first posted here and is continuing even without claims of where I stand specifically.

in al fairness. you made the claim of existance, you are hold the burden of proof.

so now you need evidence that we, you and I exist????? Wow!!!

you want to try and explain natural selection and speciation without using hard words? be my guest and show me. i'll verify if you're actually depictign it right....i am after all going to using it on a day to day basis with my study.

actually, I already did, and you told me I was wrong and in correction, offered some explaination of evolution (change) and ignored the explaination of theory of evolution...so I have no use for your nonsense on this subject

that's because if you DID peer review the articles about creationists you'd see that they don't actually pass the test. lying about lying.

without the peer review to compare, your not evidencing your claim, so if you want to use double standard, present evidence that double standard is the only available evidence...

do you not see the vicious circle you put me in, by not coming out in the very beginning?

The vicious circle you are in is that I refuse to address venom and that is all you offer.

 

[razzelflabben]

The problem is that I have yet to see anyone present a compelling case for either side of this issue
Which is why my "arguments" are so different from the usual ones,

i agree with those " there.

all you said that both sided are supported, yet you failed to explain how.

so now your claim is that conclusions are based on how many people are convinced, not on the evidence itself...remember long ago when I told you that how many people believe something doesn't make it fact???

oh and before you try. if the current consensus wasn't supported, it wouldn't be there.

but consensus doesn't make it truth, only evidence can do this, and we talked about this before...so apparently you still don't get it, evidence decides truth, not consensus...as anti God, I would think this would be a no brainer for you.

am i sensing a slight "everything anti-creationism is just because of the appeal to authority of the scientific community" here?

if so,
well....****whale

not from me....

 

[marktheblake]

I don 't have a problem with that at all, it's everyday experience for people to try to convince each others of their respective ideas.

That is a polite way of putting a discussion from oppoosite vies, but its a million times removed from the original statement being discussed.

I have no objection to anyone explaining why they beleive a certain thing even if I disagree. As a Christian, this is not an unusual occurrence for me from both sides.

My motivation is the hope that if he understands what I beleive he may consider it as well (obviously). However there is nothing I can do to make him change his mind, and it is irrational to think I can. The changing of a mind can only come from within.

i'd change my belief if he the case in question was presented well enough.

You atheists always demand proof, not words (with usually empirical, testable, peer reviewed, blah blah thrown in). Now you are saying that you will change what you beleive just because someone was clever with words.

 

[random325nicaea]

"What I am claiming is that according to the text, the flood in question which by the way is not part of the theory of creation or creation story whichever you prefer...could have been either world wide or massive local."

i don't care about how it fits in with creationism, all i care about is the truth of your claim.
and after study, you find out that the evidecne that would support it, just isn't there yet.

"I personally beg to differ, sighting all kinds of massive floods we have witnessed with our own eyes,"

personal testimy isn't the least bit convincing to me.
give me the footage, foto's deathtoll, surveys, ect.
i want the data.

oh, and a large area of land flooded =/= total annihilation of fauna&flora.
you have yet to present evidence that the flood you claim to have happened (whiping out all but 8 humans) happened in the past.
all you have is "texts said so" and that is just about as valid as "random person said so" to me.

"but let the evidence speak for itself, look up massive floods on the internet."

you think i haven't done that yet? boy, do you think poorly of me...oh and btw, this is also weak debating, you're making the claim, you have to back it up.
saying "you search up..." is just a cheapway of buying time.

"when your ready to talk to me, not just the people you hate."

you seem to mistake my frustration with your beating around the bush when it comes to bringing evidence, for hatred.
how sorry for you.

"and yet science can trace, through genetics, mankind back to one woman, interesting isn't it...."

also interesting to note, she wasn't a clone from a man.
and also interesting to note that ToE, would predict such an occurance because of teh way speciation works..

btw, just because we have 1 ancestor, doesn't mean there was only one. who is to say she didn't mate with a male from another mother. we would never fidn that guys mitocondrial RNA in her desendants...

interesting how you're try to convey reality with scripture backfires in light of someone who knows what the actual results mean...

" My claim is that the text does not specify the size of the flood only the results."

did what i said have a "does not compute" result in your head?
the "results" ARE part of your claim.

you claim there was a huge flood that whiped out a huge portion of humanity except for one family.

SUCH an event would leave traces, traces WHICH AREN"T THERE.

"when will you drop the hatred and deal with me?"

when will you stop with the "im being violated" and actually brign forth some evidence except for "the texs would imply this".
if this flood really happened, we would be able to find abundant evidence OUTSIDE of the texts.

"why not drop the venom and find out?"

why stand up to the burden of proof and give me your evidence so i can get rid of the venom?

"my claim is that the text does not specify world wide or massive local, so where are you getting the rest of this if not from the venomous bias you are bringing to this discussion. "

your claim, includes result we can test for. why don't we find the results that would support your claim, or why won't you link them if they are so apparent?

"what claim? I haven't made any real claims yet..."

you have, don't try to wriggle out of this.

"see the problem with coming with hatred instead of an open mind, "

i have an open mind, you're just refusing to give it evidence to evaluate.

"you don't even know that I made no claim yet. "

you HAVE, and i quoted you on it.

"all I've done so far is correct your assumptions about what the text really says. "

which would still leave the results to suggests telltale signs of evidence which we just can't seem to find....

"as of yet, there have been no claims by me that need scienctific evidence"

you seem to not understand that when you believe that a flood whiped out a huge portion of humanity, we could easily varify that via science.

"need I really evidence that,"

you do when you ascribe the property "whiped out a large part of the human population" to it....or as you call it "the results".

" How about New Orleans for a start, the science of that flood alone, would be enough to evidence the claims I have made. "

no it would not, if you do not understand that, you really haven't seen the extent or you really don't understand the causes and mechanics of the New Orleans flood.

levee's, hurricane, large survival rate, relatively shallow water plain, low lying land flooded, human population much more expanded, barely any preparation, a certain demographic group could not afford to get out of the area, foreward knowledge of the possible scale (ya scientists saw the damage coming).

there is so much more to the New Orleans flood then you want there to be.

"right, start with New Orleans"

right now lets look at the deathtol of the region, the geography of the region and the scale and mechanics of the flood.

WOW, high survival rate, coastal low land regions flooded and people that didn't have the means or desire to flee the area.

how different from what you need it to be.

"who said anything about a spread out pop.?"

ecology, archeology and the human genome project.

"Apparently your prejudice is still in the way of what I said."

apparently you don't know what our claim all implies.

"New Orleans..."

you find that massive?
http://geology.com/news/images/hurricane-katrina-flood-map.jpg

that's tiny compared to the rest of the inhabited land

"yet genetics takes all mankind back to one woman..."

yet you don't understand that that doesn't mean 8 people anymore then 20 or 2, or that that even means 1 female at that time. nor do you seem to understand the relevence of husbandry in the text you think is the strongest indicator of this flood.

"thus, hard to disprove using science, "

actually no, not that hard at all. if you knew some basic flood mechanics, you'd know how.

" I have not laid out any personal beliefs yet..."

again you seem to fail to understand what the "results" of your claim imply.

"When did I try to make you look ignorante?"

because you think i don't understand what the "reults" of your claim imply.

"I told you that I was a skeptic,"

w8, are you tellign me you do not believe that there was "a massive flood that whiped out a large part of the human population" ?

"because it is not dealing with the story of creation,"

i don't care about: disproving the flood -> disproving creationism.
those are seperate claims.

although is is clear i got sidestepped from the entire "we were created" part, which i might add, you were no less vague on with supplying supporting evidence, other then "the evidence seems to support both sides".

"So even in your insistance that we discuss the flood you show your prejudice getting in the way of your listening to what anyone has to say or offer."

YOU AREN"T OFFERING ME SQUAT, despite me askign you in EVERY REPLY.
all you do is whine about "venom" instead of actually defending and stating your position. you're trying to keep this farce going and jumping in when you think i make a slip up.

"the venom has been coming from your posts since you first posted here and is continuing even without claims of where I stand specifically."

BECAUSE YOU WON'T GIVE ME ANYTHING! how hard is it to understand, you hold a certain position, and you make claims and back them up.

all you did is said you supported a position, then made a few vague claims, and NEVER went on in further detail. because you keep mistakign my "cutting the grass down under the feet" for venom. (essentially i'm already tellign you what claims not to use to defend your position and why. so that we can have a more productive discussion instead of going down into those endless mind numbing discussion i've had on sites like freehovind)

"so now you need evidence that we, you and I exist????? Wow!!!"

no, i need evidence of a massive flood that whiped out a large part of the human population.
i need evidence that life had to have been designed and could not have gotten hear via means already outline in ToE.

" and ignored the explaination of theory of evolution"

lawls....how about : the explination how evolution happens.
because that's what a theory is.

"without the peer review to compare, your not evidencing your claim, "

fortunately we DO review the articles published by creationists.
hence we know they would never get published in our journals.

i'd like to bring forth irreducable complexity as my example.

"The vicious circle you are in is that I refuse to address venom and that is all you offer."

way to not want to get out of this circle, even when it's as simple as outlining your beliefs in detail.

"so now your claim is that conclusions are based on how many people are convinced,"

no.

"not on the evidence itself."

your conclusion drawn from the evidence (EG: what behe did from the flagellum) is flawed, because of (Eg: it could have fromed in intermediate stages).

"remember long ago when I told you that how many people believe something doesn't make it fact???"

remember when i said that the existance of a concensus in the scientific community isn't jsut a pure appeal to authority or numbers?

"but consensus doesn't make it truth, only evidence can do this,"

yup.
and inserting a supernatural entiry where none is required isn't truth. it's wishfull thinking.

 

[random325nicaea]

"You atheists always demand proof, not words (with usually empirical, testable, peer reviewed, blah blah thrown in). Now you are saying that you will change what you beleive just because someone was clever with words."

WHAT is wrong with demanding tenable or testable evidence?

and no, " presented well enough." =/= "because someone was clever with words"
in the minds of the scientific minded. ever read a good science paper?

i already anticipated this response....so sad that you actually tried it.

 

[atomweaver]

You atheists always demand proof, not words (with usually empirical, testable, peer reviewed, blah blah thrown in). Now you are saying that you will change what you beleive just because someone was clever with words.

Hey marktheblake, drop that venom or I'm not replying... nyah.

 

[razzelflabben]

"What I am claiming is that according to the text, the flood in question which by the way is not part of the theory of creation or creation story whichever you prefer...could have been either world wide or massive local."

i don't care about how it fits in with creationism, all i care about is the truth of your claim.
and after study, you find out that the evidecne that would support it, just isn't there yet.

great...so when we get around to discussing evolution vs. creation, we get to bring into the discussion where the one celled populations came from....? But wait, I thought that was outside the ToE...bet when it comes up, you belittle someone by claiming it isn't part of the ToE and bringing it up shows a lack of understanding of the ToE....most likely some nonsense about educating yourself before trying to discuss it will come up as well...anyone want to bet with me on that one?

"I personally beg to differ, sighting all kinds of massive floods we have witnessed with our own eyes,"

personal testimy isn't the least bit convincing to me.
give me the footage, foto's deathtoll, surveys, ect.
i want the data.

footage, would be eye witness testimony, so by your criteria is not admissable...But hey, I'm flexible, if you really doubt that we had a massive flood in New Orleans since man was on the earth, check out some of the following....New Orleans flood - Google Images

Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What amazes me is that anyone living in our modern world, especially someone who can and is using the WWW, especially someone who claims to be studying science, and loving science, could still refuse to accept that massive floods are not part of our world since the appearance of man on the earth.

oh, and a large area of land flooded =/= total annihilation of fauna&flora.
you have yet to present evidence that the flood you claim to have happened (whiping out all but 8 humans) happened in the past.
all you have is "texts said so" and that is just about as valid as "random person said so" to me.

so you still unleash your venom on me rather than listen to what I am saying...I never claimed one way or the other as to my personal beliefs on whether or not the flood recorded in scripture really happened...what I said is that we can test the effects according to the text, but not the size...the size is an non specific in the text.

"but let the evidence speak for itself, look up massive floods on the internet."

you think i haven't done that yet? boy, do you think poorly of me...oh and btw, this is also weak debating, you're making the claim, you have to back it up.
saying "you search up..." is just a cheapway of buying time.

so saying, read the text, is cheap, do you not have access to a bible...I can send you one or you can look it up on line....or are you referring to my claim that massive floods are happening even today, again, where were you when Katrina flooded New Orleans? Are you really that removed that you didn't hear about thier flooding...or are you placing others ideas on me, therefore allowing your prejudice to dictate rather than logic and reasoning of the claims being made??? I gave you the benefit of the doubt by making it about your anger, maybe that was wrong, maybe you were somewhere without access to the outside world when New Orleans flooded??

"when your ready to talk to me, not just the people you hate."

you seem to mistake my frustration with your beating around the bush when it comes to bringing evidence, for hatred.
how sorry for you.

the only evidence at this point that is needed is the biblical text, and that is an easy look, is it really that important to you to have me cut and paste it in these long posts? How about the reference, will that do? Start with Gen 6...now any claims that I didn't provide evidence of my claims would be an out and out lie, so let's see where you take it from here...

"and yet science can trace, through genetics, mankind back to one woman, interesting isn't it...."

also interesting to note, she wasn't a clone from a man.

Never hear anyone claim she was a clone from a man....interesting....who are you talking to on the side?

and also interesting to note that ToE, would predict such an occurance because of teh way speciation works..

and the bible predicts it, so where is the falsification?

btw, just because we have 1 ancestor, doesn't mean there was only one. who is to say she didn't mate with a male from another mother. we would never fidn that guys mitocondrial RNA in her desendants...

wow, what an awesome argument against some of the current DNA research being done and being attributed to evidence for ToE!!!! Now, anyone want to bet that when we start talking about the DNA evidence of the ToE, the story changes once again? I get one person to bet with me and I'll be rich...to bad you can't just bring yourself to deal with what I am saying and leave your assumptions out of it...you wouldn't be controdicting yourself before we even start discussion.

interesting how you're try to convey reality with scripture backfires in light of someone who knows what the actual results mean...

I haven't yet claimed whether scripture is reality or not, we're still discussing what that scripture really claims...so this is the problem with your venom, it clouds your eyes to what is actually being said and claimed and in it's place, putting arguements that make you look foolish.

" My claim is that the text does not specify the size of the flood only the results."

did what i said have a "does not compute" result in your head?
the "results" ARE part of your claim.

you claim there was a huge flood that whiped out a huge portion of humanity except for one family.

wrong, that is what you wanted me to say....what I said is that the text does not specify the size of the flood only that it wiped out all of mankind but one family, therefore, in order to discover whether or not the text holds truth, we need to test not for size of flood, but for results of flood. But your still trying to make me say what you want me to because in that you have a false sense of security that you can defeat what you don't really understand.

SUCH an event would leave traces, traces WHICH AREN"T THERE.

"when will you drop the hatred and deal with me?"

when will you stop with the "im being violated" and actually brign forth some evidence except for "the texs would imply this".
if this flood really happened, we would be able to find abundant evidence OUTSIDE of the texts.

well, if you continue with this argument, after the above where I posted the text (the only evidence needed since the argument is about what the text says and doesn't say) then all I can say is that you have shown yourself to be one of those evolutionists who lies. So we'll wait and see how your claims change, or if they do...

"why not drop the venom and find out?"

why stand up to the burden of proof and give me your evidence so i can get rid of the venom?

before proof is of any use, you have to understand the claim...clearly you don't because you allow your anger and hatred to violate your hearing.

"my claim is that the text does not specify world wide or massive local, so where are you getting the rest of this if not from the venomous bias you are bringing to this discussion. "

your claim, includes result we can test for. why don't we find the results that would support your claim, or why won't you link them if they are so apparent?

Okay, I started to look this up, but read your post again...still you insist that my claim is something it isn't, therefore, looking at the evidence would be a worthless attempt to move this discussion further. Until you can deal with the claim that was made as the claim that was made, we can't move forward. We're stuck right here with you pretending to know what you do not and using that "superior" knowledge as an excuse to attack and belittle others. No thanks! I'll take the high road and deal with what is being said, not what I reinvent it to say...in this case, your words say your not ready to deal with what is actually being said.

"what claim? I haven't made any real claims yet..."

you have, don't try to wriggle out of this.

"see the problem with coming with hatred instead of an open mind, "

i have an open mind, you're just refusing to give it evidence to evaluate.

the only thing needed in support of my claims at this point is 1. the biblical text of which I specifically poster where to find, and 2. that skeptics do exist, so for evidence to that, try Skepticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, all my claims have been evidenced...time for you to understand what I claimed, how about some show of understanding.

"you don't even know that I made no claim yet. "

you HAVE, and i quoted you on it.

"all I've done so far is correct your assumptions about what the text really says. "

which would still leave the results to suggests telltale signs of evidence which we just can't seem to find....

"as of yet, there have been no claims by me that need scienctific evidence"

you seem to not understand that when you believe that a flood whiped out a huge portion of humanity, we could easily varify that via science.

see above, it's about as clear as it can be made what my actual claim here is...

"need I really evidence that,"

you do when you ascribe the property "whiped out a large part of the human population" to it....or as you call it "the results".

see above referred to text. The text does not specify the size of the flood, only that the results were one family survived and provision for all the animal species to survive. That about covers the claims of the text, which really limits our ability to test, but we do have soemthing to test, but first understand what it claims.