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.
You are another one like Cabvet that just recently cited Nature as being a creationist site.
I say the same to you are I said to him. I thought you were playing a typical evo ploy of tactical ignorance. However I was wrong and giving you way too much credit. Indeed it takes a higher level of ignorance to not be able to distinguish creationist sites from research provided by your own evolutionary boofheads.
Jpcedotal actually makes a good point. There's a correlation between the decline of traditional religious beliefs* and the increase of superstition.
One study (Determinants of Superstition) noted that while religiousity in general is more likely to increase belief in the supernatural, there was a negative correlation between church attendance and superstitious beliefs. In fact superstitious belief were actually most common in post-communist countries.
Other studies (Baylor 2005 and 2007) also noted a negative link between religious beliefs / church attendance and belief in creatures which don't exist and superstition. For example:
- When asked whether they believed Bigfoot existed, the highest percentage of people who though the "probably" or "absolutely" existed were those with no religion. Similarly, those who attended church less than one a year were also the most likely to believe they "absolutely" existed. [2007 survey]
* I say "traditional" because protestant and liberal christians are significantly more likely to be superstitious than Catholic or conservative Christians.
- When asked it it was possible to comunicate with the dead, those who never attended church were the most likely to "strongly agree" it was possible. Those with no religion were also the most likely to "strongly agree" and the least likely to "disagree" (although it's worth pointing out they were also the most likely to "strongly disagree"). [2005 survey]
I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.
A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?
Your understanding of Biology generally tends to make you think that something says one thing when it says something slightly different, I might remind you of the first time we chatted it was about a study on the differences between chimpanzees and humans, you were claiming it was upturning the idea that we are only about 1% different when in reality it was talking about in what ways that 1% was different
You are another one like Cabvet that just recently cited Nature as being a creationist site.
I say the same to you are I said to him. I thought you were playing a typical evo ploy of tactical ignorance. However I was wrong and giving you way too much credit. Indeed it takes a higher level of ignorance to not be able to distinguish creationist sites from research provided by your own evolutionary boofheads.
I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.
A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?
I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.
A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?
Astridhere said:I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.
A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?
quote=Davian;59726511]I'm not one to jump to conclusions any faster than needed; it seems to me, even on other, more skeptical sites, that the creationism-types have huge problems with quote tags and punctuation...[.quote]
I,m going to have to disagree with you, on this one?
can you give me an example where I can know where you"re coming from.
He's not a poe, he believes every word he writes.You blew it when you 1) actually used punctuation, 2) put an entire empty line between your sentences instead of keeping them together, and 2) failed to shorten 'you are' into 'your'.
The point is, if you are going to poe, there are certain expectations you are going to have to meet.
Not as crazy as thinking that plants existed before the sun...
Any evidence on that yet?
Adam wrote the creation account, not Moses; and since I believe they spoke English from Adam → Tower of Babel, that means I believe Adam wrote the creation account in English, and Moses (or his predecessor, Noah?) translated it into Hebrew.I haven't claimed that Moses just made up the story, so his education is irrelevant to my point.
W are talking about how he got this information from a psychic interaction with a spirit, presuming the HS.
Under that assumption, and considering that a literal account would be incorrect, there is only one way to take the creation story and that is metaphorically.
Impressive, considering English (including old English) is less than 1,000 years old.AV1611VET said:Adam wrote the creation account, not Moses; and since I believe they spoke English from Adam → Tower of Babel, that means I believe Adam wrote the creation account in English, and Moses (or his predecessor, Noah?) translated it into Hebrew.
Adam walked and talked with God up until the time of the Fall; and I assume God dictated the creation account to him, and he wrote it down.
Adam wrote the creation account, not Moses; and since I believe they spoke English from Adam → Tower of Babel, that means I believe Adam wrote the creation account in English, and Moses (or his predecessor, Noah?) translated it into Hebrew.
Adam walked and talked with God up until the time of the Fall; and I assume God dictated the creation account to him, and he wrote it down.
I haven't claimed that Moses just made up the story, so his education is irrelevant to my point.
W are talking about how he got this information from a psychic interaction with a spirit, presuming the HS.
Under that assumption, and considering that a literal account would be incorrect, there is only one way to take the creation story and that is metaphorically.
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?