Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
It occurred to me that the other day you mentioned that you were willing to accept the scholarly view as to which bible translation was the most accurate, because you lacked the expertise to make that determination yourself. I'm working from memory and paraphrasing, but I believe I've accurately captured the spirit of what you said.
Now, inexplicably, on subjects which you are not an expect (biology and geology), you refuse to defer to the experts and instead rely on your own intuition and "knowledge". (Or perhaps, are deferring to those who in fact are not experts in the matter.)
(May 6, 2012 at 1:04 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: @GC
It occurred to me that the other day you mentioned that you were willing to accept the scholarly view as to which bible translation was the most accurate, because you lacked the expertise to make that determination yourself. I'm working from memory and paraphrasing, but I believe I've accurately captured the spirit of what you said.
Now, inexplicably, on subjects which you are not an expect (biology and geology), you refuse to defer to the experts and instead rely on your own intuition and "knowledge". (Or perhaps, are deferring to those who in fact are not experts in the matter.)
You have summarized correctly. Most of what I wrote is in the form of questions my friend, the statements I made are basic biology and geology. I've never represent myself as a biologist or geologist, unlike many atheist on this site that claim knowledge of God that no one has.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
May 6, 2012 at 3:04 am (This post was last modified: May 6, 2012 at 3:05 am by FallentoReason.)
(May 6, 2012 at 2:48 am)Godschild Wrote: You have summarized correctly. Most of what I wrote is in the form of questions my friend, the statements I made are basic biology and geology. I've never represent myself as a biologist or geologist, unlike many atheist on this site that claim knowledge of God that no one has.
Quote:So far the fossils have shown nothing of the sort, let lone proved in any way that evolution is viable.
You may have jumped the gun and given a conclusion that would be expected from someone with at least a degree in the area. Or no?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
(May 6, 2012 at 2:48 am)Godschild Wrote: You have summarized correctly. Most of what I wrote is in the form of questions my friend, the statements I made are basic biology and geology.
Unfortunately, your "basic" understanding of biology and geology are insufficient here.
I note that you didn't really answer my questions at all. I'm not really surprised.
I swear as humanity evolves creationists will devolved back into unintelligent monkeys or are they already?
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
I apologise if this is going a little off topic, but guys, I think your arguments using facts and evidence is falling on deaf ears. Creationists aren't that logical. The problem is they think they are logical. Irrational people don't think of themselves as irrational. To them, Creationism is simple, easy to understand and makes them feel safe and that's what makes it true to them. They don't define evidence and facts the same way we do. They THINK they do, but in their minds whatever is consistent with the Bible is fact and everything that contradicts it is a fabrication. If you present them with evidence, they will think up of whatever excuse to reject it. They only hear what they want to hear.
They don't define transitional fossils the same way we do because they have a very rudimentary understanding of how evolution works. To them, a transitional fossil would be some random modern animal transforming into some other random modern animal, like a monkey transforming into a human, and even if that was how evolution worked and such fossils existed, they will still come up with excuses to reject it. They don't accept evolution because they don't want it to be true. It's as simple as that. They don't want to be a "dirty animal", they want to be an all-loving God's special creation and they want absolute authority and certainty on everything. They don't want to accept there are aspects about our origins or the universe that aren't fully understood yet. They don't like that because it makes them feel unsafe and vulnerable. They cannot imagine a universe without a God because that would mean uncertainty. They've been conditioned to believe the false dilemma that either God created the universe or it all happened by accident.
I apologise if this is going a little off topic, but guys, I think your arguments using facts and evidence is falling on deaf ears. Creationists aren't that logical. The problem is they think they are logical. Irrational people don't think of themselves as irrational. To them, Creationism is simple, easy to understand and makes them feel safe and that's what makes it true to them. They don't define evidence and facts the same way we do. They THINK they do, but in their minds whatever is consistent with the Bible is fact and everything that contradicts it is a fabrication. If you present them with evidence, they will think up of whatever excuse to reject it. They only hear what they want to hear.
They don't define transitional fossils the same way we do because they have a very rudimentary understanding of how evolution works. To them, a transitional fossil would be some random modern animal transforming into some other random modern animal, like a monkey transforming into a human, and even if that was how evolution worked and such fossils existed, they will still come up with excuses to reject it. They don't accept evolution because they don't want it to be true. It's as simple as that. They don't want to be a "dirty animal", they want to be an all-loving God's special creation and they want absolute authority and certainty on everything. They don't want to accept there are aspects about our origins or the universe that aren't fully understood yet. They don't like that because it makes them feel unsafe and vulnerable. They cannot imagine a universe without a God because that would mean uncertainty. They've been conditioned to believe the false dilemma that either God created the universe or it all happened by accident.
Congratulation, you know the mind and heart of every Christian.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
May 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2012 at 9:15 pm by orogenicman.)
(May 6, 2012 at 12:53 am)Godschild Wrote: Tell me something, how do you know this creature could produce silk, how do you know it's not a scorpion. How do you know it had a segmented body, the creature was smashed under sediment, rotted away, then the space left by the absent body was filled with minerals to form this fossil. You do not know what shape the sediments weight made of it's body.
(May 6, 2012 at 1:04 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: @GC
It occurred to me that the other day you mentioned that you were willing to accept the scholarly view as to which bible translation was the most accurate, because you lacked the expertise to make that determination yourself. I'm working from memory and paraphrasing, but I believe I've accurately captured the spirit of what you said.
Now, inexplicably, on subjects which you are not an expect (biology and geology), you refuse to defer to the experts and instead rely on your own intuition and "knowledge". (Or perhaps, are deferring to those who in fact are not experts in the matter.)
You have summarized correctly. Most of what I wrote is in the form of questions my friend, the statements I made are basic biology and geology. I've never represent myself as a biologist or geologist, unlike many atheist on this site that claim knowledge of God that no one has.
I am a published geologist, so if you have any questions, ask away.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
I apologise if this is going a little off topic, but guys, I think your arguments using facts and evidence is falling on deaf ears. Creationists aren't that logical. The problem is they think they are logical. Irrational people don't think of themselves as irrational. To them, Creationism is simple, easy to understand and makes them feel safe and that's what makes it true to them. They don't define evidence and facts the same way we do. They THINK they do, but in their minds whatever is consistent with the Bible is fact and everything that contradicts it is a fabrication. If you present them with evidence, they will think up of whatever excuse to reject it. They only hear what they want to hear.
They don't define transitional fossils the same way we do because they have a very rudimentary understanding of how evolution works. To them, a transitional fossil would be some random modern animal transforming into some other random modern animal, like a monkey transforming into a human, and even if that was how evolution worked and such fossils existed, they will still come up with excuses to reject it. They don't accept evolution because they don't want it to be true. It's as simple as that. They don't want to be a "dirty animal", they want to be an all-loving God's special creation and they want absolute authority and certainty on everything. They don't want to accept there are aspects about our origins or the universe that aren't fully understood yet. They don't like that because it makes them feel unsafe and vulnerable. They cannot imagine a universe without a God because that would mean uncertainty. They've been conditioned to believe the false dilemma that either God created the universe or it all happened by accident.
Congratulation, you know the mind and heart of every Christian.
When did I say I knew the heart and mind of every Christian? Only what goes on in the minds of Creationists who misunderstand, misinterpret and distort the evidence.
.
