Deconversion experiences

25 years of studying is not thinking things through? I didn't start to question it until I was 20 and fighting in Vietnam. I was 45 when i adopted the position I now hold. Intense studying of the Bible, other texts on religion & Mythology and books on science. Yes deduction is necessary, but one has to have something to deduce. I can deduce an answer from the periodic law, or oxidation-reduction or radioactive decay through studying the concepts with what my question is. How can I do that with design when there is nothing to deduce design from when there is no theory of design. The word show is correct, no one is asking for proofs, since proofs are not found in science. Does the word falsification mean anything to you? Heliocentrism falsified geocentrism, oxidation reduction falsified phlogiston. One theory falsifying another. One cannot falsify a proof. Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I've never believed as far as I know. But my mum went out the door to 9:30 mass absently humming We're Off to See the Wizard this morning. The cracks they are a-formin'.

---

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

Since none of the above is true in any form or fashion, you can drop the usual intimidation tactics, they dont and have never worked on me. Your wasting precious time and space with alot of verbage that is rolling off of my back, like the water off a ducks back Im sorry, where did I have, "no intention of engaging in an actual debate"Where is the line that suggest as much? I been begging you to do it and all I get is complaints about one thing and another Not only have I done this numerous times now, no argument has been offered as to why any methodical investigation such as that I have offered or something in the nature of Behe's is not a scientific investigationAnd thats the point isnt it?There is no such thing as a SM or an IDM, it just an investigation of a physical and scientific venture.Just as there is no such thing as 'reverse prejudice', because it is just 'prejudice', there is also no SM and IDM, its just investigation with physical properties to the conclusion of this or thatMost "scientist" like to make this big distinction for basically two reasons.1. To make it appear as though they have something superior and therefore better in the nature of investigation. They do not2. They like to make the imaginary distinction, because they dont like what the design conclusion implies or involvesThere are not two methodologies, there is just a scientific investigation, with results and conclusions on both sides I have no idea what this means, so Ill wait for your replyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What is your native tongue?
We have people on this forum that speak multiple languages.
Maybe you would have greater success using your first language and having others translate.

Why would you make such a comment when order and law can be directly observed. Order and law in nature and the laws it follows dont need your approval for it to be correct and demonstratable any more than change in species needs a theory for it to be correct, visible and demonstratableWhat you are missing BC is that these "scientists", teach and conclude evolution and macro-evolution as a part of thier science in the classroom. As such they are teaching conclusions that are not provable.Yet, they believe the conclusion is justified, given the evidence. Order and law follow the same rule,of fact gathering and evidence in this connection. As such it carries the same weight as any theory derived using the exact same methodYour conclusions of evo and macro evo follow all the same rules concerning events where the direct evidence is no longer directly available, correct?If not show me whyDawn Bertot

Your wasting your time son, intimidation is not a substitute for an actual response to an argument.Try actually responding to an argument, you might like it. Its called debating, you might remember itDawn Bertot

I think you do not know what 'intimidation' means.But since I have just found out that you are American, I am at a loss as to why you don't know what it means.

What they are teaching has physical evidence to back it up. The best answer for the data available is evolution. Just because you see the world through ID colored glasses doesn't mean it is unless there is evidence to back it up. The evidence that we have shows no need for any designer intelligent or not. Thats what the 25 years of studying showed me and thus the need for a deity or any other supernatural fuddy-duddy is nunesessary.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Bullshit! I laid out the truth for you and you reject the truth.Name members of this forum who have been able to understand your gibberish. Your writing is almost universally regarded as unintellible gibberish.When have you ever tried to communicate with any of us here? You have vehemently opposed my request that you communicate. Communication includes accepting feedback on whether you message got across and to resend it in a more intelligible form when it doesn't. When have you ever done that? Instead, you invariably insult the person requesting clarification, a practice which directly opposes communication.Now, Dawn, if you disagree, then please explain how you think that spewing double-talk bullshit and constantly insulting your audience is supposed to qualify as an actual debate or discussion. I gave you a short list of just a few of the many things that are needed for you to engage in an actual debate or discussion and you reject them outright. Since you reject conditions that are absolutely necessary for actual debate, you are rejecting actual debate. That isn't just bullshit, but it's a flat-out lie. You never have provided an actual case of ID using the scientific method. If you had, then why did Admin have to make this demand, repeatedly? (Message 323):

quote:

---

Please stop posting to this thread until you can provide an example of ID research following all the steps of the scientific method in the point-by-point style requested by Bluejay:

​

• An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.
  ​
• An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.
  ​
• An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.
  ​
• An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

---

And the fact that you refuse to comply is further evidence that you do not intend to engage in actual debate or discussion. And that fact that you lie about it is further evidence. It is a sentence fragment left over from the editting; such fragments tend to accumulate at the bottom of the edit buffer and are not noticed and cleaned up in time. It was not intended to be part of the message. Please disregard.However, you certainly have no right to complain about it, since you have posted sentence fragments and then demanded that I respond to it, repeatedly. Hypocrite.

---

Many deconversion stories I've encountered over the years gave the reason for their deconversion as the discovery that they were being lied to by their religion and/or their religious leaders. That includes the gross dishonesty of "creation science" and now of its new deceptive face, ID.And the problem that creationists and IDists create for Christianity is not just adding fuel to the spread of deconversion, but also of erecting barriers that keep non-believers from converting in the first place.

And I have explained to you to many times now, that complaining about something and demonstrating it are two different thingsI have also asked you to provide the line or sentence that is not understandable. As of yet all you do is complain and bitch. No dewise, those were a list of things you complained that I had done or did not do. You never provided evidence of any of those claims, they were simply bitch type complaints, with no essence or substance. Why should I, or why do I need to, respond to something for which you have provided no evidence. provide the evidence of 'gibberish', then I will respond to it, as a substantiated assertionThe above quote from you is quite possibly the silliest thing I have ever read. Me not meeting your imaginary tenets is not the same as me refusing to debate. so where is the line or sentence where I refused to debate design You did not read or quote the entirity of my last post Dewise. I stated that no argument was put forth to demonstrate that what I had offered in that connection was not a scientific test.Admin has the right to remove anyone for any reason they see fit. But that is not the same as providing an argument, as to why what I or Marc9000, was or is not a scientific testNo one should lose thier faith or belief in a designer, simply because they believe our research is not a SM. One needs to provide arguments and reasons, why such are not actual tests and valid conclusionsStraggler made an attempt but it failed in the respect that all tests do not need to be complicated or involved to be a test or scientific in natureDawn Bertot

So what exacally is IT, that THEY are teaching?The immediate evidence of a physical nature, will only allow that change took placeThe immediate evidence of a physical nature, will only allow that order and law are presentThose are the only demonstratable facts that are provable, from immediate and present evidence Right here BC is where your reasoning falls apart and your double standard beginsI know you honestly believe that evolution is a better explanation, than design or creation, but in neither instance, outside of direct revelation, can one make a "best answer", because both positions suffer from the same limitationsBoth positions are forced to use the same physical evidence and scientific methods to come to very valid conclusions in both instancesIt would be funny, if it were not so serious, that you accuse me of having ID colored glasses, when neither position has an advantage over the other, when left to the evidenceProvide the particle of evidence or argument that will allow you conclusions to be better than design. Do this from the physical evidence or in a logical form and I will show you that it is not possibleits all the same method and the conclusions are based n the same methodsDawn Bertot

This isn't really a debate topic - Rather it is a "tell your personal anecdote" type topic. I don't offhand see how such can even begin to be refuted. I guess a coherent (key word) testimony to why one came to have a religious faith might be a possibility.Dawn Bertot is not (IMO) doing such such a testimony. Rather, he seems to be doing a strong job of demonstrating an irrational and incoherent version of faith. More of a powerful testimony for reasons to leave your faith.Now my here response, and also the responses of others upthread, may be falling into violating forum rule 10:

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

---

But what can one do, when faced with such as DB? Can anyone really make any sense of his position really is?And how does an admin (especially one from the evo side) moderate such a thing? I guess all I can hope is that AdminSlev (creo side?) can step in and make some sort of judgment here.Bottom line - Dawn, as best I can tell, everyone here (except maybe Buzsaw) thinks your are, for lack of a better phrase, badly incoherent. I think Buzsaw's perspective is pretty warped, but at least I can usually comprehend what he's trying to say (see here). Not is the case with you.Mooseps: Last thought - I really miss member "Truthlover". I think he might be the only member, in this forum's history, with the special wisdom to best deal with DB.

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Okay how is this for an example? In the animal kingdom we most closely resemble the great apes, yet they have 24 pairs of chromosomes while we have 23 pairs. So if we shared a common ancestor we should find evidence that one of our chromosomes originated from the fusion of two ape chromosomes. Our chromosome 2 appears to be just such a fusion of the chimpanzee chromosomes 2p and 2q. There is a second, partial, centromere sequence which matches with the corresponding chimp chromosome; there is telomere sequence in the middle of our chromosome, when telomeres are normally found at the ends of chromosomes; and the position of genes on our chromosome is identical to those on the two chimp chromosomes.
How do you see ID explaining this apparent fusion event? The telomere and centromere artefacts are non-functional so for a designed system why are they there?

That changes accure in species and that the changes that offer better chances of reproduction and survival will have a better chance of geting transmitetd to more ofspring and those ofspring will have a better chance of transmitihng tohse changes further. And takes place now and in our recorded history. There plenty of evidence for your so called micro evolution, and evidence for the creo term of macro evenolution. And that they acure naturaly whitout desighn. Yes the ones i wrote. Colsing your eyes and saying there is no toher evidence and my evidence is just as good does not make it so. There is more evidence then fossils for evolution sorry, and no evidence that order and law need a desighner sorry again. Ok lets take a look at the evidence.Evidence for Evolution - Homology
Evidence for Evolution - Embryology
Evidence for Evolution - Observed Natural Selection
Evidence for Evolution - The Fossil Record
Evidence for Evolution - GeneticsEvidence for a desighner:Order and law - NO THEY CAN SPAWN ON THEIR OWN
Life - NO SO FAR THERE IS NO NEED TO INVOKE GOD IN THAT
The universe - NO WE HAVE THEORIES THAT EXPLAIN THE CURRENT STATUS AND SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UPI SEE NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD OR A DESIGHNER AND A SHIT LOAD OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTIONEdited by frako, : No reason given.

Hello. I am a rather new member here. I did post a little, but I intend to tell my tale here. But however..I've been reading the first 6 pages, and this last one. Is it that hard to avoid debate? There are plenty of topics to do that.Some people like to tell their stories here, sometimes that can be difficult for them. Please don't ruin this topic by arguing. I'm fine with believing people reacting on people expressing doubt in a polite manner, but this is going to far.I can't go posting here in the middle of a unrestrained argument.