(February 4, 2014 at 10:09 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 9:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: Thus far, apart from these creationist propaganda erroneous pieces of information which he has accepted, he seems to be a normal bloke. My expectation of him giving an honest answer is a bit higher than the regular Y.E.Creationist.

My hope for that evaporated after about the third time he ignored a simple correction in favor of making the same claim again. Ignorance I can deal with, but when a guy seems that uninterested in actually having a discourse, I'm not going to pull my punches.

Ah, but you only provided links for him to look at... I doubt he went there and read the stuff you gave him.
Now, my technique provides the link (hopefully, he'll accept it as reliable), and gives him the precise bit of text that shows how he's wrong.

I hope he'll be honest enough to realize that the propaganda he's been fed may be misleading or, at least, acknowledge that this one piece of propaganda is outright wrong.
Apologetics for propaganda will render the effort useless...
Wait and see...

(February 4, 2014 at 10:20 am)pocaracas Wrote: I hope he'll be honest enough to realize that the propaganda he's been fed may be misleading or, at least, acknowledge that this one piece of propaganda is outright wrong.
Apologetics for propaganda will render the effort useless...
Wait and see...

I doubt it. The mindsets of science and religion are too different.

In the scientific mindset facts determine conclusions. Such as is the basis for all modern science.

In the religious mindset their religiously indoctrinated conclusions determine the "facts". The religious, at the center of their beliefs, have reached the ultimate conclusion that God and their religion is true. This means that the religious already "know" the answer regardless of any facts they may be presented with. Any facts that run contrary to this pre-determined conclusion become irrelevant or rejected based on the supposition that it must be in error.

Therefore I predict he will ignore, deflect, or evade all of your attempts.

(February 4, 2014 at 8:21 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 10:20 am)pocaracas Wrote: I hope he'll be honest enough to realize that the propaganda he's been fed may be misleading or, at least, acknowledge that this one piece of propaganda is outright wrong.
Apologetics for propaganda will render the effort useless...
Wait and see...

I doubt it. The mindsets of science and religion are too different.

In the scientific mindset facts determine conclusions. Such as is the basis for all modern science.

In the religious mindset their religiously indoctrinated conclusions determine the "facts". The religious, at the center of their beliefs, have reached the ultimate conclusion that God and their religion is true. This means that the religious already "know" the answer regardless of any facts they may be presented with. Any facts that run contrary to this pre-determined conclusion become irrelevant or rejected based on the supposition that it must be in error.

Therefore I predict he will ignore, deflect, or evade all of your attempts.

Chaps, you are not correct in your assumptions/conclusions. Christianity and any other faith is what it is called - a faith. It is not a scientific conclusion, but is not at all anti-science. Many great scientists are and were of Christian and other faiths.

I am sorry that I will not have time to continue this discussion for the next few weeks and wish you guys well.

Just a reminder that these discussions will in no way affect what is truth and our personal destinies. It is at most an exercise to take cognizance of the views of others, learn from it where you can and explain your own position as clearly as you are able to. But eventually, it is all "vanity" and in the end means absolutely nothing.

Chaps...
[/quote]

Here's your chaps...



Please let me know if you desire further analysis of the rest of your post.

(February 5, 2014 at 5:17 am)Carnavon Wrote: Chaps, you are not correct in your assumptions/conclusions. Christianity and any other faith is what it is called - a faith. It is not a scientific conclusion, but is not at all anti-science. Many great scientists are and were of Christian and other faiths.

Christianity might not be anti-science, but at the very least it's an obstacle to science that those great scientists had to overcome; they had to make a conscious choice to reject the dogma laid down in their holy books and to follow the evidence toward the conclusion it leads to, regardless of how much that contradicts the bible.

However, you are being anti-science, because you reject the vast majority of mainstream scientific evidence and documentation for over a century, solely on the premise that you have a belief you want to be true, and you'll pick and choose only the evidence that supports your view. You are being anti-science when you dishonestly shrug off those of us who are actually linking you to real science in an attempt to educate you, and respond with nothing more than assertions attached to surnames that you still haven't bothered to provide us with real references for.

You, sir, are like the poster child for the bad end those great christian scientists could have come to had they actually listened to what christianity wanted them to believe. You are the alternate, evil timeline version of every religious scientist of note, because you have absolutely no fucking care for the evidence if it doesn't support your pre-drawn conclusions.

Quote:Just a reminder that these discussions will in no way affect what is truth and our personal destinies. It is at most an exercise to take cognizance of the views of others, learn from it where you can and explain your own position as clearly as you are able to. But eventually, it is all "vanity" and in the end means absolutely nothing.

I find it richly ironic that a guy like you, who steadfastly ignored anything that disagreed with you here, has the gall to say this conversation was to "take cognizance of the views of others."

Well, that was disappointing...
Esq, you were right...
Tell your sister... you were right.

Ehh, better for him to tuck tail and run than to continue to pretend that he was engaging in a discussion. We already have a couple of threads here that are being extended by folks who stopped trying weeks ago but are determined to have the last word, even if it's a series of "nuh uh" posts.

If you apply more stringent methods to verifying scientific discoveries than you do the underpinnings of your faith, you're doing it all wrong.

I don't need to post on AF.org any more because Esquilax says exactly what I'm thinking every time!