[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='259605' dateline='1332434959']
[quote]People have been telling you from page one that evolution doesn't rule out a creator.[/quote]...And since page one people have been telling the opposite of what you have said here as well.. Given that fact who do you suppose I am speaking to? Those who support my assertion or those who do not?
[quote] Your choice of the term 'creationism' was confusing, because what you're proposing is not creationism. Your story about Eden makes no claims that are conceivably verifiable or falsifiable, leaving nothing to refute.[/quote]
Apparently they do other wise there would be nothing to discuss. To that end there have been over 150 points of discussion on this topic. This proves Your assessment to be false.
[quote]The part where God creates Eden and the first humans with souls? That part doesn't work, scientifically. [/quote] Did you not say this point could NOT be proven? This is all I bring to the table. This in a nut shell is my whole arguement... That said I suppose you have "scientific proof that mt contribution will not work "scientifically?" If so may I see it?
[quote]The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconciliation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.[/quote]Then simply end the conversation if your points have been made.
What else could you possible have to say if you voted for Thor already.
[quote]And you know we don't accept the Genesis account, so what are you trying to gain at this point?[/quote]Answered in the original post.
[quote]Evidence for your scenario would be evidence that the version of Eden you're proposing actually existed. [/quote]
Even then it wouldn't because the existence of the garden does not mean what was recorded to have happened there, happened. Just because we know of Jerusalem, it does not verify the death burial and resurrection of Christ.
What "other" items would you consider "proof?"
[quote]You seem to be under the impression that we don't believe in God because of the evidence for evolution rather than the lack of evidence for God. From page one, people have been telling you that evolution doesn't disprove God. Is there a particular reason why you can't absorb that we don't regard evolution as a disproof of God? Evolution only provide evidence against a God defined as creating life pretty much as it is now. We're quite aware that's not the only way God is defined. [/quote]
You seem to believe that the 5 people who support your understanding of evolution and God are representative of the whole atheistic community. This thread if read in it's entirety is proof that not all atheists think as you do. A fair amount have posted objections to your claims, and they support my original assessment, That evolution disproves the existence of God.
So again if My thread does not speak to your views, know with a content heart I am not speaking to you directly and there is no need to defend your honor here.
[quote]The burden of proof doesn't shift because you've eliminated some contradictions. If I claim I have a football signed by Joe Namath, the fact that it's not that implausible doesn't shift the burden of proof to you to show that I don't have such a football if you're not willing to take my word for it. [/quote]Seriously?? Have you never seen an episode of Pawn Stars? When some DB claims he has a autograph pic or football singed by anyone it is up to the guys (who are questioning the authenticity of said claim) to produce evidence for or against the sellers claim. That is why they call in an expert on signatures. Even if you never seen the show this principle is a universal truth in that all buyers beware.
[quote] If I say I have it, the burden is on me to show it to you or it's reasonable for you to disbelieve me.[/quote]
again going back to the pawn shop, it does not matter what provenance you provide, until the buyer authenticates the claim it might as well all be toilet paper. This is how the world works outside of message boards, and philosophical discussions. Perhaps that is the reason why it is so easy to get you guys to think as a hive mind so easily. All one needs is to "prove" himself to you and you do not question where he leads you.
[quote]It's not a preference, it's a conclusion. I would rather Bigfoot existed (Bigfoot would be fascinating), but I have concluded that Bigfoot does not. Better evidence for the existence of Bigfoot would change my mind. [/quote]Perhaps I should have said your preferred conclusion rather than just preference.
[quote]Skeptics are interested in evidence. It's kind of our thing.
we're not trying to stop you. Good for you that you aren't willing to throw science under the bus if it doesn't match up with your creation story, but your ad hoc reconciliation doesn't require refutation. You don't have to refute something that isn't supported by any evidence in the first place. [/quote]
Again please tell me what evidence looks like in this situation and I will be happy to try and source it for you.
[quote]Your motives for continuing this particular conversation which has been done to death are more interesting than the message. To me, at least.
Maybe it's time for you to try your message on the intended audience. There really isn't much more we can say about it as skeptics. [/quote]
Oh I have, started there first. (Sometime ago) They tend to fall back on the original R/C understanding at first then as things are explained and biblical interpretations rectified in the original scripts no one openly accepts anything but the arguments cease. Maybe it is pride maybe it is so they can claim the effort as their own. I do not care so long as the message circulates.
Now it is time to see what the other side had to say.. you all put up alot less of a fight than they did. I was honestly more scared to bring it here than to some of the crazies on the Christian site. there, most of then yield to the authority of scripture and for those who do not, well it is easy to identify their errors and dismiss them or the body of their works. Here I knew if there were any loop holes or some obscure scientific principle that I did not know of I would be beaten with it over and over... However you all seem to move to dismiss rather than address, so that means to me that you all have nothing.
I mean in comparison look at how you all defend your stances on Noah's ark. First the subject matter is completely taken apart and each subcategory is heavily scrutinized and humiliated and then your efforts turn onto the bringer of the message to make the humiliation complete.
Here you all (most of you/evidently the smart ones) moved right past the message and went to attacking the character of the messenger as away to dismiss.
Maybe your right maybe i should trying bring the message to acouple of different sites and see what everyone else has to say.
[quote]People have been telling you from page one that evolution doesn't rule out a creator.[/quote]...And since page one people have been telling the opposite of what you have said here as well.. Given that fact who do you suppose I am speaking to? Those who support my assertion or those who do not?
[quote] Your choice of the term 'creationism' was confusing, because what you're proposing is not creationism. Your story about Eden makes no claims that are conceivably verifiable or falsifiable, leaving nothing to refute.[/quote]
Apparently they do other wise there would be nothing to discuss. To that end there have been over 150 points of discussion on this topic. This proves Your assessment to be false.
[quote]The part where God creates Eden and the first humans with souls? That part doesn't work, scientifically. [/quote] Did you not say this point could NOT be proven? This is all I bring to the table. This in a nut shell is my whole arguement... That said I suppose you have "scientific proof that mt contribution will not work "scientifically?" If so may I see it?
[quote]The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconciliation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.[/quote]Then simply end the conversation if your points have been made.
What else could you possible have to say if you voted for Thor already.
[quote]And you know we don't accept the Genesis account, so what are you trying to gain at this point?[/quote]Answered in the original post.
[quote]Evidence for your scenario would be evidence that the version of Eden you're proposing actually existed. [/quote]
Even then it wouldn't because the existence of the garden does not mean what was recorded to have happened there, happened. Just because we know of Jerusalem, it does not verify the death burial and resurrection of Christ.
What "other" items would you consider "proof?"
[quote]You seem to be under the impression that we don't believe in God because of the evidence for evolution rather than the lack of evidence for God. From page one, people have been telling you that evolution doesn't disprove God. Is there a particular reason why you can't absorb that we don't regard evolution as a disproof of God? Evolution only provide evidence against a God defined as creating life pretty much as it is now. We're quite aware that's not the only way God is defined. [/quote]
You seem to believe that the 5 people who support your understanding of evolution and God are representative of the whole atheistic community. This thread if read in it's entirety is proof that not all atheists think as you do. A fair amount have posted objections to your claims, and they support my original assessment, That evolution disproves the existence of God.
So again if My thread does not speak to your views, know with a content heart I am not speaking to you directly and there is no need to defend your honor here.
[quote]The burden of proof doesn't shift because you've eliminated some contradictions. If I claim I have a football signed by Joe Namath, the fact that it's not that implausible doesn't shift the burden of proof to you to show that I don't have such a football if you're not willing to take my word for it. [/quote]Seriously?? Have you never seen an episode of Pawn Stars? When some DB claims he has a autograph pic or football singed by anyone it is up to the guys (who are questioning the authenticity of said claim) to produce evidence for or against the sellers claim. That is why they call in an expert on signatures. Even if you never seen the show this principle is a universal truth in that all buyers beware.
[quote] If I say I have it, the burden is on me to show it to you or it's reasonable for you to disbelieve me.[/quote]
again going back to the pawn shop, it does not matter what provenance you provide, until the buyer authenticates the claim it might as well all be toilet paper. This is how the world works outside of message boards, and philosophical discussions. Perhaps that is the reason why it is so easy to get you guys to think as a hive mind so easily. All one needs is to "prove" himself to you and you do not question where he leads you.
[quote]It's not a preference, it's a conclusion. I would rather Bigfoot existed (Bigfoot would be fascinating), but I have concluded that Bigfoot does not. Better evidence for the existence of Bigfoot would change my mind. [/quote]Perhaps I should have said your preferred conclusion rather than just preference.
[quote]Skeptics are interested in evidence. It's kind of our thing.
we're not trying to stop you. Good for you that you aren't willing to throw science under the bus if it doesn't match up with your creation story, but your ad hoc reconciliation doesn't require refutation. You don't have to refute something that isn't supported by any evidence in the first place. [/quote]
Again please tell me what evidence looks like in this situation and I will be happy to try and source it for you.
[quote]Your motives for continuing this particular conversation which has been done to death are more interesting than the message. To me, at least.
Maybe it's time for you to try your message on the intended audience. There really isn't much more we can say about it as skeptics. [/quote]
Oh I have, started there first. (Sometime ago) They tend to fall back on the original R/C understanding at first then as things are explained and biblical interpretations rectified in the original scripts no one openly accepts anything but the arguments cease. Maybe it is pride maybe it is so they can claim the effort as their own. I do not care so long as the message circulates.
Now it is time to see what the other side had to say.. you all put up alot less of a fight than they did. I was honestly more scared to bring it here than to some of the crazies on the Christian site. there, most of then yield to the authority of scripture and for those who do not, well it is easy to identify their errors and dismiss them or the body of their works. Here I knew if there were any loop holes or some obscure scientific principle that I did not know of I would be beaten with it over and over... However you all seem to move to dismiss rather than address, so that means to me that you all have nothing.
I mean in comparison look at how you all defend your stances on Noah's ark. First the subject matter is completely taken apart and each subcategory is heavily scrutinized and humiliated and then your efforts turn onto the bringer of the message to make the humiliation complete.
Here you all (most of you/evidently the smart ones) moved right past the message and went to attacking the character of the messenger as away to dismiss.
Maybe your right maybe i should trying bring the message to acouple of different sites and see what everyone else has to say.
