If Evolution were true...

[VehementiDominus]

Boy, if that's not typical...

Squad! Fingers in eeears!

1, 2 3, 1!

Refuse tooo listen!

1, 2 3 ,1!




Creationist boot camp; teaching creationists "Creationist drill". The only type of drill where anticipating the word of command is smiled upon.

 

[Inan3]

Boy, if that's not typical...

Blah!

Well, that's it; you've convinced me. Oh, no you haven't. You've done nothing. You haven't even attempted to rebut the fact-based argument. Obviously it's because you can't, but I kinda expected you to at least make an attempt.

Blah!

Squad! Fingers in eeears!
1, 2 3, 1!
Refuse tooo listen!
1, 2 3 ,1!
Creationist boot camp; teaching creationists "Creationist drill". The only type of drill where anticipating the word of command is smiled upon.

Blah!

Does my post get a response as well?

Which post?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

And blah, blah, blah!!

Are you that starved for attention?

 

[Inan3]

Common descent is one of the core concepts in evolutionary theory. Nothing else makes sense in evolution without it. And regarding the old earth, that's pretty much done and done. Every single branch of science that has any opinion on the matter comes to exactly the same conclusion: the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.

Common descent is no longer just hypothesized, it's a full blown theory in and of itself, and it's one of the bigger chunks in the whole pie that is evolutionary theory. We've observed speciation events more than a few times (dozens if not hundreds of documented events). As I said above, the billions of years thing is pretty much done and done. There's really no debate that the earth is billions of years old. Sure, the number might fluctuate a bit, but 4.54 is the most accurate date we have with the evidence that exists.

Now I know you accept the Bible on faith; but when the evidence is so overwhelming for a better explanation, perhaps it's time to rethink your position on a literal and inerrant Bible.

Man and animals aren't 6-10 thousand years old. There is astoundingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (1.)So ether you just haven't taken the time to look at the evidence, or (2.) you have and choose to remain purposefully ignorant of it in order to support your faith.

Or
(3.) I do not find it as "astoundingly overwhelming."

IF one looked at the evidence... How could they choose to purposefully be ignorant of it? I don't think they could be.

Ignorance = The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Once you look at something you are no longer unaware or uninformed or uneducated regarding it.

Now, one could look at so called evidence and make a choice if they thought it to be "astoundingly overwhelming" or they could look at it and say, "I seem to have a lot of questions regarding this information. It seems to assume alot of things. It seems to fill in a lot of blanks with speculation. It seems to "astoundingly and overwhelmingly" make conclusions based on conjecture. It seems to have to move this to make that work over and over again."

No, I don't think I have CHOSEN to remain purposefully ignorant of anything to support my faith. My faith is based on the scriptures and my walk with God. I don't find a lot of "if this were to happen here, then that might happen there" . No, I base my faith on "thus saith the Lord." If that is a problem to you than so be it. I have not found anything to convince me otherwise. So, NO, I do not think it's time to rethink my position on a literal and inerrant Bible. As I've said before and I will say again...That remains constant EVERYTHING else must come inline or measure up to that.

I am sorry you felt you had to employ suggestive and manipulative tactics when you sensed I wasn't following your lead. I really don't like it or appreciate it. I wondered if it would come to that and I guess I was right.

 

[Inan3]

Are you that starved for attention?

No, not starving... more like nauseous. I just had a moment where I couldn't stand to hear it any more. I've actually had quite the fill of you guys and all your insidious insults, unsufferable blatherings, and blasphemous remarks regarding God, His Word, and His people.

 

[Skaloop]

No, not starving... more like nauseous. I just had a moment where I couldn't stand to hear it any more. I've actually had quite the fill of you guys and all your insidious insults, unsufferable blatherings, and blasphemous remarks regarding God, His Word, and His people.

I might buy that if the post you blah-blah-blahed contained any of those things. Rather, it merely stated facts about ERVs. Hardly insidious or blasphemous.

 

[TheBear]

Okay, don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that evolution is a fact.

But for the creationists out there who don't believe that evolution is a fact, I have a question for you.

IF evolution was true, what would we see that we DON'T see in the world around us?

The fact that this "argument" continues here in the 21st century, despite all the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, is a strong testament to the power of indoctrination. Everyone else sees it.

 

[VehementiDominus]

The fact that this "argument" continues here in the 21st century, despite all the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, is a strong testament to the power of indoctrination. Everyone else sees it.

Only the indoctrinated don't.

 

[Greg1234]

I might buy that if the post you blah-blah-blahed contained any of those things. Rather, it merely stated facts about ERVs. Hardly insidious or blasphemous.

It didnt have anything we did not know about. The fact is ERV elements are being discovered to be functional and thus this is simply a "junk DNA" argument going awry. Finding functional ERVs in similar locations in similar organisms which may share similar functions is not front page news.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, not starving... more like nauseous. I just had a moment where I couldn't stand to hear it any more. I've actually had quite the fill of you guys and all your insidious insults, unsufferable blatherings, and blasphemous remarks regarding God, His Word, and His people.

Under the guise of science, they hide behind a clipboard to launch fiery darts at God and His people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gods people do not dismiss science they work with it, only a fool would work against science.

There goes peer review.

They can fire as many fiery darts as they like against my God and his people, if Gods people can't stand the heat they must get out of the kitchen and not keep crying foul ...

Wrong advice -- we're to take the shield of faith, whereby we are able to quench the fiery darts of the wicked; and believe me, it works.

I've had to retreat behind my faith more than once here.

... is your God not strong enough to stand up to a few fiery darts?

God is 'more than able'.

mine is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you a creationists?

Yes

do you not agree that the ToE is a fact?

I believe in limited evolution.

 

[Cabal]

No, not starving... more like nauseous. I just had a moment where I couldn't stand to hear it any more. I've actually had quite the fill of you guys and all your insidious insults, unsufferable blatherings, and blasphemous remarks regarding God, His Word, and His people.

It's hard being wrong, isn't it Inan?

 

[Cabal]

Wrong advice -- we're to take the shield of faith, whereby we are able to quench the fiery darts of the wicked; and believe me, it works.

Does that involve yelling blah at people with valid points?

Call me old-fashioned, but a shield that leaves everyone in a state of ROFL at the sheer bankruptcy of your stance isn't much of a shield. It might help YOU keep up the denial, but...

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that involve yelling blah at people with valid points?

Like you guys routinely do?

She isn't the first to use that term, [hopefully] you know.

blah blah durp durp

if its so false then go get a nobel for falsifying it.

Contrariwise, you have no right to say that your deity does exist (based upon your own statements).
Yeah yeah yeah, I know, the whole "Atheists have as much faith as Christians" argument....blah blah. Don't even bother traveling that path.

15

I had to ask when I got here, and that's actually not what a Poe is. A Poe is someone pretending to hold a certain position and playing clueless just to get a rise out of people. Sort of like a troll, only a fake troll. For example, s Poe might join the board, holding a creationist opinion, and intentionally use all the common misrepresentations of evolution. (eg: blah blah 747 in a graveyard! Why are there still monkeys?) even though they might not even be creationists at all, but just playing one for their own amusement.

 

[Cabal]

Like you guys routinely do?

And you post samples of posts that still actually respond to a point rather than entirely containing blah, as Inan's did. Bravo sporty, way to pwn yourself there.

And the Lord said to bring them this message 'blah blah blah' - looks like another Great Commission Fail!

She isn't the first to use that term, [hopefully] you know.

And that makes it ok for you do it....how?

I really love this attitude you, Inan, Hupomone etc. display all the time. Really, how far do you take it? How exactly does someone being a hypocrite justify you maintaining that behaviour? If a murderer tells you it's wrong to murder, do you think "oh, sweet, I get a free murder, because he's a hypocrite! That makes it ok for me to do it!"

You wonder why you're not taken seriously - this is certainly a big part of it. You think you're the morally superior crowd, try acting like it.

Still can't escape logic, mind - a murderer decrying murder may be a hypocrite, but it doesn't stop him from being wrong....

 

[AV1611VET]

And you post samples of posts that still actually respond to a point rather than entirely containing blah, as Inan's did.

And if I remember correctly, Inan showed some contrition for it, no?

And that makes it ok for you do it....how?

For the record, sporty, I haven't done that.

You wonder why you're not taken seriously -

No, I sure don't.

I lost nearly all respect for you guys, when you started calling me everything but what is in my profile, and laughing and mocking the rest.

 

[Cabal]

And if I remember correctly, Inan showed some contrition for it, no?

And you're still defending it.

And not to put fine a point on it, whining about blasphemy when quoting a point about science isn't really contrition, it's just being a sore loser.

For the record, sporty, I haven't done that.

No, you manifest your sarcastic avoidance of points in other ways, even if you don't use the word "blah". Try not being so literal-minded, it'll do you good.

Now, care to *ahem* stop avoiding the point about your hypocrisy?

No, I sure don't.

I lost nearly all respect for you guys, when you started calling me everything but what is in my profile, and laughing and mocking the rest.

By their fruits shall ye know them - and lest I leave myself open for any more avoidance on your part, I'm referring to you.

 

[rjc34]

Or
(3.) I do not find it as "astoundingly overwhelming."

Then you didn't look at it or didn't understand it. The facts only point one way; this isn't a case where one can simply pull out the "we're looking at the same evidence but come to different conclusions". No, the facts and evidence point to one thing and one thing only.

IF one looked at the evidence... How could they choose to purposefully be ignorant of it? I don't think they could be.

Ignorance = The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Just as one could read a classic novel and not absorb any of the meaning of it, one can claim to have looked at the evidence for something and really not have absorbed any of it.

Once you look at something you are no longer unaware or uninformed or uneducated regarding it.

This isn't true at all. Using poor sources (creationist websites), selective reading, among other things, can actually make your understanding of evolution even poorer that it started out to be.

Now, one could look at so called evidence and make a choice if they thought it to be "astoundingly overwhelming" or they could look at it and say, "I seem to have a lot of questions regarding this information.

Funny how when I and others here asked you to pose any questions you had about it to us, you just ignored it.

It seems to assume alot of things.

Such as? Provide me an example and I'll give you the evidence to back it up. And no, methodological naturalism doesn't count.

It seems to fill in a lot of blanks with speculation.

No, it doesn't. We're talking solid, well-backed theory here, not hypotheses or speculation. So please, back this up so I can shut it down.

It seems to "astoundingly and overwhelmingly" make conclusions based on conjecture.

Scientific theories don't work on conjecture; I assume this statements only stems from your poor understanding of science and the scientific method.

It seems to have to move this to make that work over and over again."

This and that only move with new evidence and new facts. The explanation for something specific might change if a hypothesis is proposed that much better fits the evidence, as well.

No, I don't think I have CHOSEN to remain purposefully ignorant of anything to support my faith. My faith is based on the scriptures and my walk with God. I don't find a lot of "if this were to happen here, then that might happen there" . No, I base my faith on "thus saith the Lord." If that is a problem to you than so be it. I have not found anything to convince me otherwise. So, NO, I do not think it's time to rethink my position on a literal and inerrant Bible. As I've said before and I will say again...That remains constant EVERYTHING else must come inline or measure up to that.

Well I'm sad to hear that. I thought before that you were really interested in a search for truth, a search to follow the evidence to where it leads, but I guess not. There's a huge paradox in that paragraph as well; you said in the beginning that you don't think you've chosen to remain purposefully ignorant, but then at the end you say that you believe the Bible and thus all facts and evidence must mold themselves to fit your worldview. If that isn't 'purposefully ignorant' I don't know what is.

You were given some facts that are evidence for evolution by another member, and all you could respond with was 'blah blah blah!'. That tells me that you really don't care what's true, because if something contradicts your worldview, you're just going to ignore it.

I am sorry you felt you had to employ suggestive and manipulative tactics when you sensed I wasn't following your lead. I really don't like it or appreciate it. I wondered if it would come to that and I guess I was right.

Excuse me?! Suggestive and manipulative tactics? I'm sorry that your worldview forces you to willfully ignore evidence, but don't put that on me. Evolution is fact - not faith - and if you really wish to learn about the evidence supporting it, there's dozens of us willing to help you along your journey of discovery. But, if you merely wish to come here and back down as soon as anyone decides to challenge you meaningfully, then just don't bother hanging around here.

 

[rjc34]

If we think that our religion was our own personal choice what are the odds on millions of people in a country all choosing to believe in the same religion? it's the power of indoctrination?

For 99% of religious people, their religion wasn't a choice. One who is brought up Christian and never questions it will likely be some denomination or another of Christian their entire life. Same for a child brought up Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. What it really is a testament to is the power indoctrination in children. Over millions of years human children have evolved the trait of believing everything their parents or other figures of authority tell them. You can get a kid to believe in Jesus just as easy as Allah, Santa Claus or unicorns. The issue is, parents don't tell their kids that if they don't believe in Allah, Santa or unicorns they will burn for eternity in the depths of hell.