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.
got to applaud you on that one....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
awesome reason for the schools to present the science and leave the "logical" conclusions to the individuals....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 dont think you are following - I don't object to being challenged but everyone will object to being made to change their belief.
Well i just checked his post again, cant agree with you - he was far too explicit.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
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.
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.
unfortunately, the evidence supports both for the most part.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...
How would you feel if someone was trying to make you change what you beleive?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.
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?
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...i'd applaud them.
and i'd change my belief if he the case in question was presented well enough.
any other questions?
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. ?
The problem is that I have yet to see anyone present a compelling case for either side of this issueWhich is why my "arguments" are so different from the usual ones,then i suggest you grab a few articles which lead to the current consensus within the scientific community.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
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."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.
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." the flood could have been universal or massive local"
universal is impossible. that's what the physics, geography and the quantity of water says.
right, which is why the size is not part of the equasion, only the results are. The text specified effects, not size.massively local isn't a measure of scale.
when your ready to talk to me, not just the people you hate.be more precise.
200km^2 or 200000 km^2 (these can both be "massively local", depending the locality.
and yet science can trace, through genetics, mankind back to one woman, interesting isn't it...."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.
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?" 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.
why not drop the venom and find out?"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""
it's easy to test, drop the venom and find out what I have to offer by dealing with me not your prejudices...either stop with this, or you admit you have nothing.
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.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"
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."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.
all I've done so far is correct your assumptions about what the text really says."...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.
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."or you don't believe the very science we see everyday."
the very science you have NOT presented?
right, start with New Orleans"The only timeline I offered was after man appeared on the earth...."
which is somehtign we can test for.
who said anything about a spread out pop.? Apparently your prejudice is still in the way of what I said.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.
New Orleans..."|which evidence shows we still have massive floods, after man's appearance on the earth"
1)provide said evidence.
yet genetics takes all mankind back to one woman...2) any of those floods did not reduce the human population to 8 induviduals.
thus, hard to disprove using science, huh, and yet you try....which in essence is saying it was "big....to an ant".
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.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.
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?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.
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.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)
you still haven't dealt with any of the claims I made, only the claims you want me to make.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.
the venom has been coming from your posts since you first posted here and is continuing even without claims of where I stand specifically.the venom is because you never told me what you believe.
so now you need evidence that we, you and I exist????? Wow!!!in al fairness. you made the claim of existance, you are hold the burden of proof.
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 subjectyou 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.
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...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.
The vicious circle you are in is that I refuse to address venom and that is all you offer.do you not see the vicious circle you put me in, by not coming out in the very beginning?
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,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???i agree with those " there.
all you said that both sided are supported, yet you failed to explain how.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.oh and before you try. if the current consensus wasn't supported, it wouldn't be there.not from me....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
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.
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.
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?"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.
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"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.
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.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 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??"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.
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..."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 the bible predicts it, so where is the falsification?and also interesting to note that ToE, would predict such an occurance because of teh way speciation works..
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.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...
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.interesting how you're try to convey reality with scripture backfires in light of someone who knows what the actual results mean...
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." 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.
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...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.
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."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?
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."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?
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"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.
see above, it's about as clear as it can be made what my actual claim here is..."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 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."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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?