Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

We will hope that when all the evidence is collected and reviewed scientists today are still scientists indeed and not just a "good old boys club" that would be a nice conclusion to this whole discussion.

The only way that your work will get rejected out of hand is if it's poorly advertised. In order to understand what you need to do to write a good scientific paper, you should read scientific papers in the field you're interested in. Once you have the language and format down, nobody should reject your paper for any reason other than it being wrong.

 

[Tomk80]

someone truely motivated will find a way to this "exclusive" information.

Do you presume that particle accelerators are lying on the street for everyone to find or something? Or genetic sampling techniques? Do you assume that those are just lying around for anyone to buy?

There are a host of ways to get to it. Many things can affect this decision, money, time restraints (such as when they can go to school) transportation, social issues, etc. etc. etc.

This is partially true. My observation is that those who really want to get into the scientific discourse and contribute new theories take this path. Maybe at a later age, after they have worked to first raise the money to pay for it, but those who are truly interested take this road.

 

[Tomk80]

We will hope that when all the evidence is collected and reviewed scientists today are still scientists indeed and not just a "good old boys club" that would be a nice conclusion to this whole discussion.

Then we will really need to go into the evidence, either in this thread or another. I have yet to see a valid case of this presented on current theories, all I've seen in that is nutjobs.

 

[razzelflabben]

You seem to be saying that you haven't a single example of a lying evolutionist, which is a significant statement since you've been posting here at least as long as I have.

How do you get that from my statement. I wanted to keep the illusion that people here don't purpose to lie about things and keep names of people who have lied private in order to maintain that above reproach idealism of not resorting to accusations that could be argued based on the evidence of not knowing anothers heart. Yet instead of dropping it like I suggested you push, why? Because you want your name listed anomg the list of evolutionists here posting lies at one time or another? Consider thiseception includes the range of means whereby people may be mislead. The most evident of these is lying. But it also includes withholding information which the person might find of immediate significance, as well as misleading the person into some alternative belief, or reinforcing such a belief. Then there are the more marginal forms of deception, such as evasion, euphemism and exaggeration; and the often unconscious forms of deception (without intention to mislead), such as the subtle changes of subject, the disguises, the gestures leading astray, and silence and inaction.

So if you continue to push the issue, I will have two choices presented, ignore your push or make a list of which you would be included of people on this forum who have purposely or not twisted comments and evidence to support their claims without ever taking the time to listen and consider the point being made. It is a symptom of the core problem of thinking your ideas are infallible.

Still, while you may not care how many creationists have already lied to me, and wouldn't think of correcting them,

Be careful of your claim, I can and do argue both sides of the issue, depending on the person I am speaking to. IOW"S, if I am speaking to a creationist I critisize there, as easily as I critisize evolution. Devil's advocate as it were.

I do care how many evolutionists lie to you, if that should ever happen. Trust me on this, I will straighten them out much more harshly than you likely would. So I insist you produce any and every specific example you ever come across, OK?

Start with yourself and move on, there have been many times when I have talked to you that you used subtle forms of lieing to make your point. The first time I recall conversing with you, it wasn't totally your fault, you were given poor information about what I believed,(another list of lies from evolutionist) but when I corrected you, you ignored my correction to continue misrepresenting my views to make your point. Misrepresentiation is indeed a form of lieing. Point is, don't throw stones till you are innocent yourself. Now I would appreciate dropping the issue and let records stand for themselves, can we do that? I am totally uncomfortable with accusing people of things I have myself done at one time or another, it is a place of judgement of which I do not like to sit. Judgements can be wrong in and of themselves, I prefer to refrain from such.

I'm definitely no fan of our education system either!
But mine is still superior relative to thiers.

Your education or education system? Not following your comment at all.

Insufficient. Trust can be based on evidence of probability and past experience in light of multiple experiments. Faith is something more than that. Just as you describe below, it is a complete trust that is not dependant on reason and is embraced beyond reason to the point that it cannot be serious questioned.

Not exactly, belief is an embracement beyond reason or at least can be, faith is trusting that to the point of conforming your life and ideas. Look at the christian community, many people believe to the point of obsession that God is the only way, but few actually live the life the bible calls them to do, they do not trust what they believe to conform their lives. Faith is trust. Belief is what we believe and why.

See what I mean? To me such an obsession as this is never warranted and might not even be considered sane. Please understand my sincerity when I say, I find it deeply unsettling to hear you describe your faith that way.

First question, where did I describe my faith? See, this is not a discussion about me personally, we can do that if necessary, but so far isn't about me at all, but about life and people in general. So how can you be deeply unsettled to hear me describe my faith that way when I have not described my faith at all. Do I know you and just not connecting the screen name with an old friend or aquaintance? It seems to me that this has been a problem throughout, I make a general comment and you turn it into a personal one. For example, I say that science needs to be unbiased. Simple enough comment, commonly held, and you take it to mean that I think science is unbiased. I say that evolution has problems and you take that to mean that I am a creationist. I say that god/gods/God are evidenced and you read that to say that I belive in God and that I am trying to convince you that God is the only possible and let's throw in creationist here just to be safe. What I am instead saying is that science need to be unbiased, that evolution has some problems as well, that by way of evidence god/gods/God are evidenced and thus possible, not absolutes. Thus my personal "religious" beliefs never touching the screen.[/quote]
That's hard to believe since I searched high and low and consistently was one of the things I could not find in Christianity anywhere. [/quote] I don't find christianity consistant either, what I have found to be consistant is the God of the bible and the bible in general. Not necessarily the same thing. Which is why I have some basic problems with christianity.

I maintained my belief in God for some time after I stopped believing in Jesus.
Opposite story for me. I wanted to believe, but just couldn't keep rationalizing reasons to.
Opposite story for me. In order to determine what is really real, I knew I couldn't trust faith because faith can only be deceptive.

Not when faith/trust is based in truth and evidence. Again, it seems you are confusing the two.

In every situation I can think of, truth has always been better revealed through critical scrutiny than by assuming you were already right to begin with.

And a wise person does just that, they review the evidence, scrutinize it, make a conclusion, then allow their faith to be shaped by their conclusions/beliefs. In fact, this is what I have been saying all along. Beliefs are steeped in evidence, what is necessary is to evaluate that evidence not simply dismiss it.

This process lead out of Christianity first, then monotheism, and theism in general, and finally out of supernatural beliefs altogether.
No ma'am, not in any sense. Faith offers no way to discover the real truth about anything. But its a great way to stay wrong forever and never realize it.

Depends on how or when the faith comes into the picture. If the faith is a natural flow of the belief based on evidence, you are wrong. Let me see, an example that will make sense to you..... okay, you look at the evidence and conclude that evolution is fact or truth this is your belief, just as a religious person will have a belief. Now, when you allow your belief in evolution to guide your understanding of all other subjects, you have faith. So if you look at new evidence and see evolution, your faith is governing who you are. Just as a religious person would allow their faith to govern who they are.

Whoa no! Way wrong. Critical inquiry, peer review, even experimentation, the testing of hypotheses through potential falsification -every aspect of the scientific method individually or collectively could be described as the antithesis of faith. As for whether we know all the answers or not, we need only know those which are inescapable circumstances of our existence; that is our reality.
I do not live by faith at all, nor will I ever again. I have learned my lesson well, thank you.

Sounds like, especially from the reaction here that what you have learned is to not live by unfounded beliefs. Big difference, in fact, your post are brimming with evidence that you do indeed live by faith. Just not of the religious nature.

 

[razzelflabben]

1. Money usually isn't much of a problem. If you can get a degree at a decent four-year college or university, then you can get supported in full for the entire time you're in graduate school. You can always get loans for the four-year degree, and it's typically easier to get money if you make less. The main obstacle here isn't really money, it's research. And fortunately basically every school has a great department dedicated to helping students obtain the needed information.
2. It's going to take much more time to learn the stuff on your own, and it's much more difficult. This is one reason why it's best to take the traditional route: get school over and done with before getting entangled with a relationship, family, and all that (though I do know a number of married people in graduate school).
3. Transportation is why it's best to just go live near school (which also means that you need to pick your school carefully, to make sure you can afford to live there).

1. These were offered at a few examples not a conclusive list
2. you left out some of the list
3. I know people to fit each of these categories and the help you talk about isn't there
4. I did not offer them as excuses IOW's there are many people who fall into these categories that don't have to.

Individuals always have induividual reasons and situations that govern what they do or don't do and how they do it or don't do it. It would be impossible for that reason to satisfy a discussion like this, because it is always about the idividual.

 

[razzelflabben]

The only way that your work will get rejected out of hand is if it's poorly advertised. In order to understand what you need to do to write a good scientific paper, you should read scientific papers in the field you're interested in. Once you have the language and format down, nobody should reject your paper for any reason other than it being wrong.

See, your word should is exactly why my post exists. In the ideal world it shouldn't be rejected, but what needs to be determined is what happens in the real world.

 

[Edx]

So if you continue to push the issue, I will have two choices presented, ignore your push or make a list of which you would be included of people on this forum who have purposely or not twisted comments and evidence to support their claims without ever taking the time to listen and consider the point being made. It is a symptom of the core problem of thinking your ideas are infallible..

Start with yourself and move on, there have been many times when I have talked to you that you used subtle forms of lieing to make your point.

Uh oh! Now you've gone and done it!

*goes to get pop corn*

you were given poor information about what I believed,(another list of lies from evolutionist)

Btw, this isnt true. It annoys me that you said I lied about that. You had a problem with the evidence for commen ancestry, and Aron was to discuss that with you as he was better informed to discuss it. Its not my fault you didnt apparently want to. You didnt bother answering any of his important questions and instead you went into your riduclous semantics games again without ever even trying to listen to him. In the end he had to give up on you just as I had.

 

[razzelflabben]

Do you presume that particle accelerators are lying on the street for everyone to find or something? Or genetic sampling techniques? Do you assume that those are just lying around for anyone to buy?


This is partially true. My observation is that those who really want to get into the scientific discourse and contribute new theories take this path. Maybe at a later age, after they have worked to first raise the money to pay for it, but those who are truly interested take this road.

I'll answer this simply with a question, if should cut throw a lot of discussion.

You spoke of scientists who contribute without formal education, where did they get access to this information for self study? and why?

 

[Tomk80]

See, your word should is exactly why my post exists. In the ideal world it shouldn't be rejected, but what needs to be determined is what happens in the real world.

Why not? If I present my data in a sloppy manner, this will not help me get them accepted. Logical, because if I do not take the time to present them in a good manner, I probably have nothing of worth to say anyway. So I go to different people who help me in presenting my data in a good way. It's all part of the effort you need to put in. Again, you seem to be arguing here for some kind of 'no effort, no schooling' kind of science.

 

[Tomk80]

I'll answer this simply with a question, if should cut throw a lot of discussion.

You spoke of scientists who contribute without formal education, where did they get access to this information for self study? and why?

Self-study and conversation with biologists. His interest in spotting bird of prey together with his dedication to accurately observe has made him an expert.

But here this is possible, because you do not need advanced instruments to spot birds. You can still work with relatively simple instruments, especially in fields like these were still a lot of basic stuff is unknow (our knowledge of birds of prey is actually extremely high).

This doesn't hold up for many areas of study. In atomic physics or genetic research you will need large, expensive equipment, sometimes with specialized substances (such as radioactive substances). Often in medical research you need either test animals or people, so your research will need to be ethically approved. You cannot do such research at home, you need the institutions.

 

[razzelflabben]

Why not? If I present my data in a sloppy manner, this will not help me get them accepted. Logical, because if I do not take the time to present them in a good manner, I probably have nothing of worth to say anyway. So I go to different people who help me in presenting my data in a good way. It's all part of the effort you need to put in. Again, you seem to be arguing here for some kind of 'no effort, no schooling' kind of science.

No, that is not what I mean at all, in fact, the word should was offered in conjuction with a well written and researched paper. Therefore, only by taking my comments out of context could they read that a poorly written paper should be considered. Keep things in context, the context is that the paper is well written and researched, and as such it should be considered. Thus keeping in context, the word should is the problematic word. If the ideal world and the real world are the same, then the paper would definately be considered, not should. Now understand definately be considered doesn't automatically be included, only considered for inclusion. This then is the point of my comment when taken in context.

 

[Tomk80]

No, that is not what I mean at all, in fact, the word should was offered in conjuction with a well written and researched paper.

Nothing in your post indicated this.

Therefore, only by taking my comments out of context could they read that a poorly written paper should be considered. Keep things in context, the context is that the paper is well written and researched, and as such it should be considered.

If that was what you meant, I agree. But this is not what I got from your post. Your post stated nothing on how well-written or not a paper is. In fact, it seemed to indicate the opposite if taken in conjunction with Chalnoth's post.

Thus keeping in context, the word should is the problematic word. If the ideal world and the real world are the same, then the paper would definately be considered, not should. Now understand definately be considered doesn't automatically be included, only considered for inclusion. This then is the point of my comment when taken in context.

Fair enough. If you mean a well-written paper, I agree.

 

[razzelflabben]

Nothing in your post indicated this.


If that was what you meant, I agree. But this is not what I got from your post. Your post stated nothing on how well-written or not a paper is. In fact, it seemed to indicate the opposite if taken in conjunction with Chalnoth's post.
[/quopte] Which is why context and quotes ae important ingredients in forum discussion.

Fair enough. If you mean a well-written paper, I agree.

Then we agree, isn't that nice (not patrinizing, sincere)

 

[Aron-Ra]

Your education or education system?

Your education. You are a product of our education system, are you not? You and thousands more like you imply that educators havent been doing their jobs.

Not following your comment at all. Not exactly, belief is an embracement beyond reason or at least can be,

Then you are following my comment after all, -and you evidently agree with it.

faith is trusting that to the point of conforming your life and ideas. Look at the christian community, many people believe to the point of obsession that God is the only way, but few actually live the life the bible calls them to do,

Fortunately!

they do not trust what they believe to conform their lives. Faith is trust. Belief is what we believe and why.

Faith is not simply trust; it is a complete confidence beyond reason that was never dependant on reason to begin with. If you don't believe me, look it up.

"1. complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief."
--AskOxford

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
--Bartleby.com, Dictionary.com

"Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony."
--OneLook

"a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
--Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

"Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof,."
--Encarta

"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia

First question, where did I describe my faith?

In the last paragraph of post # 572.

See, this is not a discussion about me personally, we can do that if necessary, but so far isn't about me at all, but about life and people in general.

No, you were quite clearly talking about your own personal take on faith.

So how can you be deeply unsettled to hear me describe my faith that way when I have not described my faith at all. Do I know you and just not connecting the screen name with an old friend or aquaintance? It seems to me that this has been a problem throughout, I make a general comment and you turn it into a personal one.

No, you did that yourself. In that paragraph, you said;

"I was not a "christian" (still not religious christian, different discussion) when I looked at the evidence and reviewed it. What I found was a consistancy, that I couldn't get away from. Thus, I began to form a belief system that God does indeed exist. But belief doesn't mean Itrusted it, in fact, I still questioned whether or not I was right, even though the evidence convinced me that I was. In order for that belief that I was right to become real, it needed to have faith, trust that God being real could and would affect my life. For me, personally, this required a testing of the evidence and collection of new evidence, for others, it is automatic, some never find it, they are content to always believe but never have faith." ​

For example, I say that science needs to be unbiased. Simple enough comment, commonly held, and you take it to mean that I think science is unbiased. I say that evolution has problems and you take that to mean that I am a creationist.

You are.

I say that god/gods/God are evidenced and you read that to say that I belive in God and that I am trying to convince you that God is the only possible and let's throw in creationist here just to be safe. What I am instead saying is that science need to be unbiased, that evolution has some problems as well, that by way of evidence god/gods/God are evidenced and thus possible, not absolutes. Thus my personal "religious" beliefs never touching the screen.

But you just, and I mean just said that you believe in gods based on evidence, evidence most renowned theologians readily admit never existed.

That's hard to believe since I searched high and low and consistently was one of the things I could not find in Christianity anywhere.

I don't find christianity consistant either, what I have found to be consistant is the God of the bible and the bible in general. Not necessarily the same thing. Which is why I have some basic problems with christianity. [/quote]I found no consistency between the gods in the Bible either.

In order to determine what is really real, I knew I couldn't trust faith because faith can only be deceptive.

Not when faith/trust is based in truth and evidence. Again, it seems you are confusing the two.

No, you're definitely the one confusing faith and trust. I was trying to point out the difference between the two to illustrate that they certainly aren't synonyms as you've asserted here.

And a wise person does just that, they review the evidence, scrutinize it, make a conclusion, then allow their faith to be shaped by their conclusions/beliefs. In fact, this is what I have been saying all along. Beliefs are steeped in evidence,

But not where faith is involved.

what is necessary is to evaluate that evidence not simply dismiss it.

As I have no faith, I have never "simply dismissed" evidence of any kind. I probably believed more in my day than you do now, but saw all of that systematically fail further inspection.

Faith offers no way to discover the real truth about anything. But its a great way to stay wrong forever and never realize it.

Depends on how or when the faith comes into the picture. If the faith is a natural flow of the belief based on evidence, you are wrong. Let me see, an example that will make sense to you..... okay, you look at the evidence and conclude that evolution is fact or truth this is your belief, just as a religious person will have a belief. Now, when you allow your belief in evolution to guide your understanding of all other subjects, you have faith. So if you look at new evidence and see evolution, your faith is governing who you are. Just as a religious person would allow their faith to govern who they are.Sounds like, especially from the reaction here that what you have learned is to not live by unfounded beliefs. Big difference, in fact, your post are brimming with evidence that you do indeed live by faith. Just not of the religious nature.

No ma'am. I don't live by faith of any kind at all. First of all, all my beliefs are tentative, subject to dramatic change as the evidence demands, and I have had to change profound areas of my world-view more than once as a result. You see the faith-based perspective is -by your own admission- a matter of "putting everything you are into that belief, ...trusting that belief to be truth, ...hanging all you are, will be and hope to be in that one bit of belief" based on an alleged witness or authority claiming "truth". No part of my perspective matches that or dares come near it. My perspective denies and defies it. In fact, I would rather be publicly proven wrong than forever be wrong and never realize that.

Evolution is a fact because it can be demonstrated to be. Otherwise, I wouldn't 'believe it' myself because I question everything! In my perspective, there are those things that are demonstrably real, and some things which have been disproved, and whatever is left must be considered possible however improbable they may seem. Knowing a dark yet probable reality is still better than putting stock into a beautiful lie, and that perspective alone is the antithesis of faith.

 

[Aron-Ra]

How do you get that from my statement.

I listed several specific examples, and indicated that I could go on with that list, but you seemed disinterested in pursuing the topic, indicating the same had never happened to you.

I wanted to keep the illusion that people here don't purpose to lie about things and keep names of people who have lied private in order to maintain that above reproach idealism of not resorting to accusations that could be argued based on the evidence of not knowing anothers heart. Yet instead of dropping it like I suggested you push, why?

Because creationists typically lie in these debates where evolutionists apparently don't. That is the point I'm making. It can't be "truth" if it takes a lie to defend it.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
– Martin Luther

We have a growing list of comments like that from creationists, but you'll never find a single such sentiment coming from an evolutionist!

Because you want your name listed anomg the list of evolutionists here posting lies at one time or another? Consider thiseception includes the range of means whereby people may be mislead. The most evident of these is lying. But it also includes withholding information which the person might find of immediate significance, as well as misleading the person into some alternative belief, or reinforcing such a belief. Then there are the more marginal forms of deception, such as evasion, euphemism and exaggeration; and the often unconscious forms of deception (without intention to mislead), such as the subtle changes of subject, the disguises, the gestures leading astray, and silence and inaction.

So if you continue to push the issue, I will have two choices presented, ignore your push or make a list of which you would be included of people on this forum who have purposely or not twisted comments and evidence to support their claims without ever taking the time to listen and consider the point being made. It is a symptom of the core problem of thinking your ideas are infallible.Be careful of your claim, I can and do argue both sides of the issue, depending on the person I am speaking to. IOW"S, if I am speaking to a creationist I critisize there, as easily as I critisize evolution. Devil's advocate as it were. Start with yourself and move on, there have been many times when I have talked to you that you used subtle forms of lieing to make your point. The first time I recall conversing with you, it wasn't totally your fault, you were given poor information about what I believed,(another list of lies from evolutionist) but when I corrected you, you ignored my correction to continue misrepresenting my views to make your point. Misrepresentiation is indeed a form of lieing. Point is, don't throw stones till you are innocent yourself. Now I would appreciate dropping the issue and let records stand for themselves, can we do that?

I insist that the records stand for themselves; that's why I won't drop this issue.

I am totally uncomfortable with accusing people of things I have myself done at one time or another, it is a place of judgement of which I do not like to sit.

I don't have that problem because I haven't done the same thing myself. You see, I am innocent. That's why I'm throwing stones.

Judgements can be wrong in and of themselves, I prefer to refrain from such.

Then you would have done well to heed your own advice, and not accuse someone else when you know you can't defend it.

In each of the examples I gave, as in many others not yet listed, it can be proved that the creationist in question made a statement which was demonstrably false, and which they knew was false before they made the claim. That's what a lie is; presenting as true some statement or claim which you already know is not true -for the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone else. So to defend your accusation, you're going to have to (1) cite a specific example wherein I made a particular claim which can be revealed to be false, and (2) show proof that I knew that statement was false before I made it. You will never acheive the latter, and I suspect you'll never acheive the former either. But if you do try to cough something up, we'll put up a poll to determine whether your accusation is legitmate - or is mine instead, or neither of us on any point. Since you made the accusation, and I am an honorable man, then I really must insist that you put up or shut up, and I mean immediately.

 

[razzelflabben]

Your education. You are a product of our education system, are you not? You and thousands more like you imply that educators havent been doing their jobs.

Actually, my beef is more in how the schools are run, which does affect the quality of work, but is not the same thing. Put it to you this way, when you are told directly by "the powers that be" that they do not hire the most qualified people for the job, what do you think is going to happen?

Then you are following my comment after all, -and you evidently agree with it.
Fortunately!
Faith is not simply trust; it is a complete confidence beyond reason that was never dependant on reason to begin with. If you don't believe me, look it up.

"1. complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief."
--AskOxford

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
--Bartleby.com, Dictionary.com

"Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony."
--OneLook

"a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
--Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

"Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof,."
--Encarta

"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia
In the last paragraph of post # 572.
No, you were quite clearly talking about your own personal take on faith.

How? Tom and I just had a bit of problem because he didn't follow the context of a comment. In what way did I speak of my personal faith here, in fact, I purpose to keep my personal beliefs out of forum discussions as much as possible. The purpose of this is to be as objective as possible, to remove emotion from the arguement. I do this in all my arguements and my husband gets really crazy about it sometimes because he argues only emotionally. My personal faith I will gladly talk about if asked what I personally believe, but our discussion has been about science and the scientific community not my own personal beliefs and faith and you might be surprised what I hold to personally if you ever take the time to find out instead of assuming what is not there.

No, you did that yourself. In that paragraph, you said;

"I was not a "christian" (still not religious christian, different discussion) when I looked at the evidence and reviewed it. What I found was a consistancy, that I couldn't get away from. Thus, I began to form a belief system that God does indeed exist. But belief doesn't mean Itrusted it, in fact, I still questioned whether or not I was right, even though the evidence convinced me that I was. In order for that belief that I was right to become real, it needed to have faith, trust that God being real could and would affect my life. For me, personally, this required a testing of the evidence and collection of new evidence, for others, it is automatic, some never find it, they are content to always believe but never have faith." You are.​

Note there is nothing there about whether or not it became faith, only what is required for it to become so. Thus again, I show you that my own personal belief/faith is purposely left out of the discussion and enough included to offer examples of general statments, thus, you have no idea what my personal faith situation is, only that I found consistancy in God and the bible and not in christianity, oh yea, you also know that I question and test that consistancy. How does that say anything about faith? If you want to know about my faith, just ask, don't assume. You know the old saying about assuming don't you?​

But you just, and I mean just said that you believe in gods based on evidence, evidence most renowned theologians readily admit never existed.

No, I said that I looked that the evidence for God and found it to be convincing based on the testing and consistancy of the evidence. First correction is God verses gods and second correction is a consistancy or the evidence and tests thereof. In fact, I find inconsistancy in the evidence for gods or god, but that is a different discussion.

I don't find christianity consistant either, what I have found to be consistant is the God of the bible and the bible in general. Not necessarily the same thing. Which is why I have some basic problems with christianity.

I found no consistency between the gods in the Bible either.

Neither do I and in fact, the bible itself, presents evidence against the gods. Thus more consistancy. Go figure.

No, you're definitely the one confusing faith and trust. I was trying to point out the difference between the two to illustrate that they certainly aren't synonyms as you've asserted here.
But not where faith is involved.
As I have no faith, I have never "simply dismissed" evidence of any kind. I probably believed more in my day than you do now, but saw all of that systematically fail further inspection.

That is your experience, and mine was different, so who then has truth?

No ma'am. I don't live by faith of any kind at all. First of all, all my beliefs are tentative, subject to dramatic change as the evidence demands, and I have had to change profound areas of my world-view more than once as a result. You see the faith-based perspective is -by your own admission- a matter of "putting everything you are into that belief, ...trusting that belief to be truth, ...hanging all you are, will be and hope to be in that one bit of belief" based on an alleged witness or authority claiming "truth". No part of my perspective matches that or dares come near it. My perspective denies and defies it. In fact, I would rather be publicly proven wrong than forever be wrong and never realize that.

And I can present one piece of evidence that would question our DNA evidence for evolution and you would dismiss it as redily as you dismiss God, without ever contemplating or examining. That dear one is faith in your percieved truth of evolution. Now the point is not whether or not the evidnce is conclusive, but whether or not it is viewed and weighed with respect to the evidence. You have shown in the past you can't do it. That leaves you with faith that your belief in evolution is what guides your life, and that isn't science at all.

Now again, I would like to respectfully ask you to drop the current topic in that so far, this thread has been pretty calm and I would like to keep it that way. If you would like to talk about some of these personally issues I would suggest PM's for the sake of curtisy and grace.

Evolution is a fact because it can be demonstrated to be. Otherwise, I wouldn't 'believe it' myself because I question everything! In my perspective, there are those things that are demonstrably real, and some things which have been disproved, and whatever is left must be considered possible however improbable they may seem.

All scientifically minded as I have said and agreed upon.

Knowing a dark yet probable reality is still better than putting stock into a beautiful lie, and that perspective alone is the antithesis of faith.

Yet your post show a faith in your belif of evolution, so why do you deny it? It really isn't so scary, we all have some degree of faith, it is what drives us.

 

[razzelflabben]

I listed several specific examples, and indicated that I could go on with that list, but you seemed disinterested in pursuing the topic, indicating the same had never happened to you.

I honestly don't think you want to pursue this topic, at least in public, it won't go well for you.

Because creationists typically lie in these debates where evolutionists apparently don't. That is the point I'm making. It can't be "truth" if it takes a lie to defend it.

Again, I show you an evolutionist who lies and you dismiss it without consideration. I do think you might want to drop it while you can save face in doing so.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
– Martin Luther

Nowhere am I supporting lies, just the opposite. What I am supporting is not being to quick to call someone a lier. Big difference, one that comes from respect.

We have a growing list of comments like that from creationists, but you'll never find a single such sentiment coming from an evolutionist!

Don't be to sure of that.

I insist that the records stand for themselves; that's why I won't drop this issue.

I am going to once agian advice you to either drop the issue, or take it up privately. You won't like the evidence or what I have to say about it.

I don't have that problem because I haven't done the same thing myself. You see, I am innocent. That's why I'm throwing stones.

But you aren't and the record will show as much. Which is why I give you the benefit of the doubt, because what is in your heart and what is on "record" are not always the same thing.

Then you would have done well to heed your own advice, and not accuse someone else when you know you can't defend it.

I do not puposely lie about anything to anyone, but that doesn't mean that I have never said something that could be viewed as a lie or misrepresentation of another. That is why I reserve judgement instead of insisting on judging others.

In each of the examples I gave, as in many others not yet listed, it can be proved that the creationist in question made a statement which was demonstrably false,

as you have done.

and which they knew was false before they made the claim.

as you have done

That's what a lie is;

as claimed that you did, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you save face, something you seem intent on not doing. Sad really, I will keep others from this list in that they are not a part of this discussion.

presenting as true some statement or claim which you already know is not true -for the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone else. So to defend your accusation, you're going to have to (1) cite a specific example wherein I made a particular claim which can be revealed to be false, and (2) show proof that I knew that statement was false before I made it.

Matter of public record and started the first time I had dealings with you on the forum. That is go enough and I hope you are willing as I am to forget all the "lies" and move on to a more beneficial discussion. The funny thing is, you can claim innocense all day, but that doesn't make you innocent, which is why the discussion should be terminated before feelings are hurt.

You will never acheive the latter, and I suspect you'll never acheive the former either. But if you do try to cough something up, we'll put up a poll to determine whether your accusation is legitmate - or is mine instead, or neither of us on any point. Since you made the accusation, and I am an honorable man, then I really must insist that you put up or shut up, and I mean immediately.

Review our discussions and see where I corrected you about what I believe and you insisted I believed something else. And BTW a poll will not answer anything, not when it is a poll of people who ditto you just because they agree with your beliefs and faith.

 

[Edx]

 

[Aron-Ra]

you were quite clearly talking about your own personal take on faith.

How? Tom and I just had a bit of problem because he didn't follow the context of a comment. In what way did I speak of my personal faith here, in fact, I purpose to keep my personal beliefs out of forum discussions as much as possible. The purpose of this is to be as objective as possible, to remove emotion from the arguement. I do this in all my arguements and my husband gets really crazy about it sometimes because he argues only emotionally. My personal faith I will gladly talk about if asked what I personally believe, but our discussion has been about science and the scientific community not my own personal beliefs and faith and you might be surprised what I hold to personally if you ever take the time to find out instead of assuming what is not there.

I didn't do that, and there would have been no need to. When you spoke of your faith, you clafified that yourself, and left me nothing to assume from that, nor was I ever interested in pursuing that any further.

Note there is nothing there about whether or not it became faith, only what is required for it to become so. Thus again, I show you that my own personal belief/faith is purposely left out of the discussion and enough included to offer examples of general statments, thus, you have no idea what my personal faith situation is, only that I found consistancy in God and the bible and not in christianity, oh yea, you also know that I question and test that consistancy. How does that say anything about faith? If you want to know about my faith, just ask, don't assume. You know the old saying about assuming don't you?

Again, I never assumed anything, I just somehow managed to cut-and-paste words you say you never typed.

I found no consistency between the gods in the Bible either.

Neither do I and in fact, the bible itself, presents evidence against the gods. Thus more consistancy. Go figure.

How is it consistent that at one point there is a council of gods, then one god claiming to have no one beside him, then another god claiming to sit where the other one said no one sat? How is any of that consistent in your mind?

That is your experience, and mine was different, so who then has truth? And I can present one piece of evidence that would question our DNA evidence for evolution and you would dismiss it as redily as you dismiss God, without ever contemplating or examining.

Fifteen years worth of objectively exploring numerous different religious perspectives in-depth, and you dismiss that all in ignorance based on another of your own failed assumptions. Hypocrisy much?

That dear one is faith in your percieved truth of evolution. Now the point is not whether or not the evidnce is conclusive, but whether or not it is viewed and weighed with respect to the evidence. You have shown in the past you can't do it. That leaves you with faith that your belief in evolution is what guides your life, and that isn't science at all.

I have already countered this failed accusation which the past has shown you can't make stick. One should learn from her mistakes and give up.

Quitters never win and winners never quit, but those who never win and never quit must be creationists.

Now again, I would like to respectfully ask you to drop the current topic in that so far, this thread has been pretty calm and I would like to keep it that way. If you would like to talk about some of these personally issues I would suggest PM's for the sake of curtisy and grace. All scientifically minded as I have said and agreed upon. Yet your post show a faith in your belif of evolution, so why do you deny it? It really isn't so scary, we all have some degree of faith, it is what drives us.

No, that is what drives you. I denounce and reject faith outright and completely regardless what the topic or application may be. Try as you might, you will not project your faults onto me as I do not share them.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I honestly don't think you want to pursue this topic, at least in public, it won't go well for you.

That doesn't matter because I never lied to you. But if I did, then I would deserve the humiliation of public exposure.

Again, I show you an evolutionist who lies and you dismiss it without consideration.

Because that evolutionist was ME, and I still dismissed even that only after consideration.

I do think you might want to drop it while you can save face in doing so. Nowhere am I supporting lies, just the opposite. What I am supporting is not being to quick to call someone a lier. Big difference, one that comes from respect.

I didn't accuse you of lying, did I? I said creationists often do lie, and that the professional ones typically do. But I specifically put to you was a request that you present for me any and every example you ever find of an evolutionist lying for evolution, because I maintain that never happens. All it would take is one exception to prove me wrong. So watcha got?

We have a growing list of comments like that from creationists, but you'll never find a single such sentiment coming from an evolutionist!

Don't be to sure of that.

It would only take one example to prove me wrong, wouldn't it?

I am going to once agian advice you to either drop the issue, or take it up privately. You won't like the evidence or what I have to say about it.

It doesn't matter what you say about it. I'm insisting on a public forum to see what everyone else says about it.

I don't have that problem because I haven't done the same thing myself. You see, I am innocent. That's why I'm throwing stones.

But you aren't and the record will show as much.

Will the record show that any time soon?

Which is why I give you the benefit of the doubt, because what is in your heart and what is on "record" are not always the same thing.

Wait. What?

I do not puposely lie about anything to anyone, but that doesn't mean that I have never said something that could be viewed as a lie or misrepresentation of another. That is why I reserve judgement instead of insisting on judging others.

I'm not just talking about someone saying something wasn't completely accurate or well thought-out:

In each of the examples I gave, as in many others not yet listed, it can be proved that the creationist in question made a statement which was demonstrably false,

as you have done.

Prove it.

and which they knew was false before they made the claim.

as you have done

Good luck proving that one.

That's what a lie is;

as claimed that you did, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you save face, something you seem intent on not doing. Sad really, I will keep others from this list in that they are not a part of this discussion.

Liars don't deserve dignity, so get to it already. When, where, and how do you imagine that I ever lied to you?

presenting as true some statement or claim which you already know is not true -for the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone else. So to defend your accusation, you're going to have to (1) cite a specific example wherein I made a particular claim which can be revealed to be false, and (2) show proof that I knew that statement was false before I made it.

Matter of public record and started the first time I had dealings with you on the forum. That is go enough and I hope you are willing as I am to forget all the "lies" and move on to a more beneficial discussion. The funny thing is, you can claim innocense all day, but that doesn't make you innocent, which is why the discussion should be terminated before feelings are hurt.

Hurt me, and show no mercy.

You will never acheive the latter, and I suspect you'll never acheive the former either. But if you do try to cough something up, we'll put up a poll to determine whether your accusation is legitmate - or is mine instead, or neither of us on any point. Since you made the accusation, and I am an honorable man, then I really must insist that you put up or shut up, and I mean immediately.

Review our discussions and see where I corrected you about what I believe and you insisted I believed something else.

I'm not doing your homework for you, because I'm sure I would never find whatever you think I should see. Now once again, put up or shut up. Produce any quote you can find wherein I supported something as true which I already knew was verifiably not true. You can't do it because it didn't happen. You'll either have to admit that or embarass me deeply. But I'm not even remotely concerned. Bring it, or shaddup.

And BTW a poll will not answer anything, not when it is a poll of people who ditto you just because they agree with your beliefs and faith.

(1) I have no faith in anything, certainly not people.
(2) I have no friends here. Even Edx would rip me a new one if you could prove that I lied. Consideringlily would too, and she'd make it hurt!
(3) I never lied, not to you, nor to anyone else in the course of debating this topic. Because as I said, and Edx's sig will attest, creationists often lie in defense of their faith, but science has no faith even in itself, and sees no value in pursuing anything that isn't probably true or at least possibly so.