Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 7:16 PM
389 online now:
AdminPhat (Phat), CRR, edge, Faith, Genomicus, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (7 members, 382 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,396 Year: 10,002/21,208 Month: 3,089/2,674 Week: 505/961 Day: 118/117 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5758
59
6061
...
64Next
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(4)
Message 871 of 949 (744538)
12-12-2014 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Colbard
12-11-2014 7:04 AM


Re: To the last few replies
I understood in the following years that there was a mistake, but it did not change my attitude towards evolution which to me was an insult to God.

So then you already knew that the claim was false, but you still presented it to us as being true. Knowingly trying to pass off a false statement as being true is called deliberate lying.

By your own admission you are a willful liar. According to my own Christian training and what I'd heard from most others who would call themselves "Christian", lying is a sin. The way that you have been waffling and weasel-wording, I don't believe that you have actually identified yourself as being a Christian, but I think we can fairly safely assume that you are, albeit probably of some very odd independent strain. What is your sect's doctrine about "lying for the Lord"? How do you justify committing a sin in the service of your religion? I have repeatedly observed the same behavior over the decades in countless creationists, so I really do want to understand how the creationist mind is working regarding their willful lying in support of their religion.

I initially came here thinking that there would be a fair trial for creationism, ...

So why didn't you pursue that objective instead of immediately resorting to being a troll, posting lies, and deliberately stirring up trouble? You've been working against your objective all this time.

For there to be any kind of a trial, a case must be made and presented. We have repeatedly asked you to present your case, but you have repeatedly refused to. How was that supposed to further your objective? The closest thing to presenting your case was your bogus carbon-dated-coin story, which not only turns out to have been a deliberate lie, but you presented it for the distinct purpose of creating discord (AKA, for you to be a troll). How was supposed to have furthered your objective?

If you truly want to have a fair trial for creationism, then you must present your case for it! And presenting your case is much more than making bald assertions. You must be ready and willing to support the statements of your case. You must be able to present evidence for your case. And you must actively participate in any and all cross-examination, responding to the inevitable challenges to your statements and to your evidence. That means that you must read the responses to your presentations and respond to them substantively.

That is what you must be ready and willing to do you are to make any kind of progress towards your objective. Frankly, everything we've seen from you so far tells us that you do not have the stomach for it. You appear to be deathly afraid of presenting your claims and "evidence" for fear that they will be refuted. Well, you should want them to be tested. If a claim is weak or false (eg, your bogus coin story), then you will want to know that so that you don't use it. And if a claim proves to be strong, then you will want to know that so that you can feel confident in using it. Even that charlatan Kent Hovind stated on his drdino website that he welcomed responding to his critics, because that gave him a chance to test and correct his claims, quoting from the Bible something about "iron sharpeneth iron" (though in practice the hypocrite would do everything he could to avoid responding).

Remember when you "challenged" us by asking us what we would do if we found out something we believed was wrong? Do you remember our responses to that (assuming you didn't just ignore them)? We want to find out if any of our ideas are wrong, because we don't want to use wrong ideas. We're interested, even driven, to seek knowledge and the truth about everything. You need to feel the same way in these discussions.

And we do want you to present your case. When I started studying "creation science" in 1981, it was with the expectation that there was actually something to it, that they actually some kind of evidence for their ideas about creation. It's been more than three decades now and I have yet to see any creationist present any of that evidence; even though they still claim to have "mountains of evidence", the only mountain I've ever seen them present has been Mount Bandini (that is from an old commercial for a fertilizer company, "Ski Mount Bandini!", which refers to their huge pile of dessicated cow manure waiting to be packaged).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 7:04 AM Colbard has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 872 of 949 (744539)
12-12-2014 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Colbard
12-11-2014 7:04 AM


Re: To the last few replies
I initially came here thinking that there would be a fair trial for creationism, ...

In the unlikely event that you are finally able to get on track with this objective instead of frittering your time away counter-productively, I have some suggestions you should think about.


  1. Propose a new topic for the trial. That will afford us a new start and minimize interference and distraction from threads of discussion already in existence.

  2. Review some other topics to see how the proposal, which would be the first message, was written. That should help you in composing your own proposal for the trial.

  3. At some point, you will need to present your definition of "creationism". We all understand it to refer to the young-earth creationism that is associated with biblical literalistic Christian sects, such as fundamentalists and Seventh-Day Adventists, and which employs "creation science". If what you mean "creationism" is distinctly different from that meaning (or at least if you believe that it is), then you will need to explain those differences to us clearly and completely. This is also in keeping with the most fundamental first rule of discussion: define the terms that will be used and have both sides agree to those definitions. Creationists are notorious for switching definitions of words in order to generate confusion, muddy the discussion, and deceive the audience.

  4. You should also do the same for terms such as "evolution". Again, creationists are notorious for not understanding what evolution is or means, such that all their arguments and complaints against "evolution" pertain only to their own grossly distorted misconceptions and not to evolution itself. By providing us with a clear definition of your misunderstanding of evolution, you will help us to help you alleviate your confusion.

That should help you get started on the right path to pursuing your stated objective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 7:04 AM Colbard has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(5)
Message 873 of 949 (744560)
12-12-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 768 by Colbard
12-08-2014 8:28 AM


Re: How Should We be Teaching Science?
What will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?

We have answered your question overwhelmingly: we want to test our own ideas and conclusions in order to detect and correct error. We are dedicated to seeking and learning the truth.

The important question, which we did ask (albeit not as directly) and which you ignored, needs to be directed to you:
What will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?

It is a very important question for creationists to answer honestly:


  1. Creationists in particular and biblical literalists in general have adopted a false theology in which they believe that finding any error in their myriad religious conclusions will invalidate all of their religion, both proving the Bible to be completely and utterly false and even disproving the existence of God. These conclusions include conclusions about the Bible and about what it says and about how the world must be according to their religious conclusions (eg, young earth, Noachian Flood). "Creation science" actively teaches this approach and many creationists I have had discourse with have adamantly insisted on this position.

  2. This question must inevitably be faced because the creationist conclusions about how the world must be are contrary-to-fact. That means that should a creationist make the grave mistake of examining the real world, he will see his religious conclusions contradicted.

  3. Creationists and fundamentalists are thoroughly trained to believe that should they ever find that their religious conclusions are wrong in any way, then the only alternative for them is to through their Bibles into the trash and become atheists. Again, this "necessary" action has been presented to me in numerous discourses with creationists and fundamentalists and they have fervently and adamantly insisted that that is their only alternative.

  4. Creationists will do anything at all to avoid becoming atheists because they've found that their conclusions are wrong. There is no lie too big that they will not try, no deception too insidious.

  5. Hence creationists are driven to become flagrantly and zealously dishonest and to abandon any and all morals in "God's Absolute Laws." And they are taught to fear and hate the truth.

My position for the past three decades has consistently been that none of that is necessary. That there should be no conflict between evolution and belief in a Creator, though there can indeed be some conflict between certain narrow and contrary-to-fact religious beliefs and their own misunderstanding of evolution. That tricking and forcing creationists and fundamentalists into becoming atheists is wrong, unnecessary, and just plain stupid.

Creationists claim that they are defending the truth of the Bible, but that is not true. They claim to believe what the Bible says, but that is also not true. Rather, they actually believe in is their theology and what they are defending is their theology. Their theology tells them what to think about the Bible and what to think that the Bible says and what to believe about how the world must be if God exists. Who creates theologies? Man does. Theologies are all man-made. Oh sure, they're supposed to be based on Revelation, but the vast majority of their mass is all made up by imperfect fallible Man as He tries to understand and interpret and expand upon what he believes to be Revelation. As a result, theologies are imperfect and fallible. And yet creationists and biblical literalists have raised their imperfect fallible theologies to the level of "Word of God", embuing them with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility. It is their theology that has made contrary-to-fact claims about the real world and that is holding their faith hostage, threatening to obliterate their faith should any of those claims be wrong.

Man created that theology (actually, we all create our own theology, constructed out of our own misunderstanding of what our religious leaders have taught us about their own misunderstanding of what their teachers had taught them about ... etc, etc, etc). Theology was never intended to be perfect. The existence of God was never intended to be dependent on a specific theology. If the claims of a theology about the real world are found to be wrong, then they need to be corrected or removed from that theology. God has nothing to do with that. If you find your theology to be in error, then that means that you need to correct your theology, not give up on God altogether. If you are going to become an atheist, that is not the right way to do it!

So, Colbard, what will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Edited by dwise1, : theology


This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:28 AM Colbard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2014 12:28 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 874 of 949 (744567)
12-12-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by dwise1
12-12-2014 11:25 AM


What will make you change your mind ...
So, Colbard, what will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?

The other question than can be asked is what I call the "Bill Nye Question" (from the debate with Ken Hamm):

What will make you change your mind?

Nye's (and my) answer is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that invalidates previous scientific theory.

Ken Hamm's answer was "nothing" -- and that is typical creationist belief, not bound by evidence or reality.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by dwise1, posted 12-12-2014 11:25 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 7:32 AM RAZD has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 875 of 949 (744588)
12-13-2014 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 846 by Colbard
12-11-2014 7:28 AM


Re: To the last few replies
DWise1 writes:

But what is the cause of that denial of the Creator? Not science. Science cannot disprove the existence of any of the gods, nor does it try to nor does it have any need to, nor does it have any desire to.
Rather, it is "creation science" that is the cause of that denial of the Creator. And it is "creation science" that is able to disprove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God and it is "creation science" that is very zealous in imposing its teachings that disprove the existence of the Creator. I've explained that to you already. Stop trying to blame others for your own mess!


Here again is that explanation, which you ignored before, from Message 709:
DWise1 writes:

No, science does not disprove Divine Creation, nor does it try to, nor is any scientists without a personal religious agenda in any way motivated to. Nor could science ever disprove Divine Creation. Rather, that is what YEC does. It is YEC that disproves Creation and even God. YEC accomplishes that impossible task by convincing its followers of false premises that say that if the earth is old, then Scripture has no meaning, and that if evolution is true, then God does not exist and everybody should just become atheists (I'm not making this up; over the decades several fundamentalists have insisted emphatically that those are the consequences of an old earth and evolution being true and nothing I could say would budge them from that position). Well, of course the earth is old and evolution is true, so according to their false logic Scripture has no meaning and God does not exist. Even many non-YECs accept YEC's false premises at face value and, seeing that the claims of YEC are false, follow the YEC conclusions that God does not exist.


In that same message, I pointed out that there are several different kinds of creationism, but the current issues center around one particular form of young-earth creationism (YEC) which employs "creation science" as its legalistic deception, though the creationist and fundamentalist communities have themselves adapted that deception into other aspects of their ministries. That fact has a direct bearing on your own objection to "creation science".

Colbard writes:

Coming from your standpoint, I believe you have a case against creation science, personally I have scruples with it too, for other reasons, because it tries to find a compromise between inspiration and the opinions of the world.


Frankly, we also are bewildered by creationists' insistence on explaining away all supernatural miraculous events with naturalistic explanations. A prime example is forum member Faith's attempts to explain how Noah's Flood laid down all the strata of the Grand Canyon and then carved the canyon out all in the very short time-frame of that Flood (which in YEC would have been about one year). This played out here in a few very long topics in which she, being almost completely ignorant of geology and of physics and of chemistry, repeatedly dreamed up more and more imaginative "naturalistic" explanations for how the waters of the Flood could have done all that. Of course, every single one of her "naturalistic explanations" completely violated the laws of physics as she attributed to those Flood waters abilities and behavior no flood water nor any other collection of water could possibly exhibit. Her "naturalistic explanations" were just plain physically impossible. And yet whenever any of us would offer to her that God just performed a supernatural act to "make it so" (eg, in frequent references to her Flood waters being magic), she would adamantly refuse that possibility.

Similarly, we hear of repeated attempts by engineers and scientists and amateurs, who are devout fundamentalist Christians, as they try to "defend and prove the Bible" by trying to come up with purely naturalistic explanations for other miraculous events in the Bible, such as the Parting of the Red Sea as well as the Ten Plagues. Why? And why don't they see that their actions would actually be much more likely to have the opposite effect? In creation/evolution rhetorics, creationists constantly vilify science for "disproving God" by offering naturalistic explanations for things that they think should be credited to God, such as the formation of the Solar System or the beginning of life, and yet here they are doing the exact same things with their own attempts to explain away the Flood and other miracles of the Bible. To non-creationists, that just does not make any sense at all!

I suspect two reasons for this, though both reasons ultimately bring us to "creation science" and the predominant role it has assumed in fundamentalist-et-alia communities.

The first reason coincides with the initial growth of science, in particular with the origins of geology as a science -- I discuss this much more fully on my page, GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF AN ANCIENT EARTH, a repost of an upload I had made to CompuServe back in the day (the historical part starts about 3/4 of the way down the page). Geology really started developing in the early 19th century and it got devout science-minded Christians (AKA "natural theologians") interested in looking for geological evidence of Noah's Flood. Of course, they never found any such evidence and some leading "scriptural geologists" even became the harshest critics of "Scriptural Geology"; eg, William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick. Nonetheless, devotees of "Scriptural Geology" kept puttering about in their sheds and keeping the idea alive among dilettantes. A century later in the 1920's and 1930's, Canadian creationist writer George McCready Price (also a Seventh-Day Adventist) with practically no geological training re-created "Flood Geology". In 1961, Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering (again, no geologist) became the "Father of Flood Geology" by co-authoring the book, The Genesis Flood, in which he appears to have taken all his idea from Price without acknowledging that source. And then a decade later Morris became one of the creators of "creation science".

There is another evangelical tradition that I believe had contributed. From the 1940's and afterwards and undoubtedly even before, evangelical Christians produced a lot of literature, including films, along the lines of "Sermons from Science". Their themes would mainly be to reveal something interesting about nature in order to inspire awe in God as the Creator. I suspect that when "creation science" was being created, they drew on this body of stories.

The second reason I enumerated is based on the history of the creation of "creation science" -- I present it more fully in the handout for a presentation I gave at church, reposted as DWISE1'S EARLY-BIRD PRESENTATION. In the USA, Populist opposition to the teaching of evolution grew into an anti-evolution movement following WWI. In the 1920's, they were able to get "monkey laws" passed in four states, one of which led to the Scopes Trial which proved ineffective since it didn't make it to the US Supreme Court, though it did have the effect of publicly shaming the anti-evolution movement, leading them to shun public attention. Even though they were no longer visible, they did continue to exert pressure on school boards, teachers, and textbook publishers to keep evolution out of the schools. In the 1960's as a reaction to the launching of Sputnik, the US pushed heavily to improve science education, which led to actual scientists writing the textbooks, which led to evolution being reintroduced into the textbooks, which led to teachers being placed in violation of their states' "monkey laws", which led to Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), which led to the striking down of all "monkey laws" as unconstitutional.

Having lost their main tool for barring the teaching of evolution, the anti-evolution movement was revived and revitalized, but they soon found that their old ways no longer worked. They tried law suits and new laws. They also campaigned for equal access to the science classroom under names like "equal time" and "equal access" and "balanced treatment" and for which they developed educational materials which freely mixed their anti-evolution and anti-old-earth claims with explicit religious statements and references. Time after time their efforts were stymied and they would lose their court cases until finally they came to recognize the legal precedence that they could not have the teaching of evolution barred for religious reasons.

That is when and where "creation science" was created. They took their educational materials and superficially scrubbed them of all overt religious references, though their religious basis was still obvious. Now as they campaigned for "equal time" and "equal access" and "balanced treatment", they would lie by insisting that their reasons and their objections to evolution were "purely scientific".

Because of those actions, "creation science" came to be known as "playing the game of 'Hide the Bible'." And the game was also played through new state laws which were later also found to be religiously motivated and hence ruled unconstitutional, such that now "creation science" is legally recognized as being religious in nature. So the anti-evolution movement adopted another development, "intelligent design", as a new name for "creation science", changing the name of the game to "Hide the Creationism". Then in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) "intelligent design" was legally recognized as just another name for "creation science" and hence also religiously motivated and also not allowed.

Hence "creation science" was created as a deliberate deception for circumventing the law and deceiving the public. But YEC has continued to evolve. The churches started using it to bolster their own morale, to help their congregants convince themselves that they were right in their YEC beliefs. And they started using it to proselytize as well. Now it has become thoroughly integrated in their theologies.

Perhaps part of its appeal for them is a kind of "science envy". In our modern society, the findings of science enjoy a degree of acceptance and trust that religious statements no longer have. So by co-opting science to serve their religion, they hope to imbue their religious statements with an aura of scientific respectability. Even though the only way to do that is by lying.

... personally I have scruples with {creation science} too ...

You also have mentioned studying flood geology. You used "creation science" materials for that. Doesn't say much for your scruples.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 7:28 AM Colbard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 7:28 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 876 of 949 (744591)
12-13-2014 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by dwise1
12-13-2014 2:45 AM


IF A is False Than B MUST be False
dwise1 writes:

It is YEC that disproves Creation and even God. YEC accomplishes that impossible task by convincing its followers of false premises that say that if the earth is old, then Scripture has no meaning, and that if evolution is true, then God does not exist and everybody should just become atheists (I'm not making this up; over the decades several fundamentalists have insisted emphatically that those are the consequences of an old earth and evolution being true and nothing I could say would budge them from that position). Well, of course the earth is old and evolution is true, so according to their false logic Scripture has no meaning and God does not exist.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head! Surely there are better ways that we humans have for learning about our faith, our beliefs, and also in understanding science for what it is---not a religion nor agenda but simply a disciplined means of thought and reason.(with concrete results)

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo

If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by dwise1, posted 12-13-2014 2:45 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 877 of 949 (744592)
12-13-2014 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 874 by RAZD
12-12-2014 12:28 PM


Re: What will make you change your mind ...
quote:
The other question than can be asked is what I call the "Bill Nye Question" (from the debate with Ken Hamm):

What will make you change your mind?

Nye's (and my) answer is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that invalidates previous scientific theory.

Ken Hamm's answer was "nothing" -- and that is typical creationist belief, not bound by evidence or reality.


For me personally, evidence wont likely have me change my mind on a macro level concerning my belief and philosophy, but it well may change my mind on a micro level. What would more likely have to change for me to stop being a believer is my heart. My mind is always evaluating every possible bit of information, who said it, what their motive or intention was, and how belief fits in with human interaction and communion.


Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo

If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2014 12:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2014 2:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


(1)
Message 878 of 949 (744593)
12-13-2014 7:52 AM


General reply
Thanks for sharing your opinions.
  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 879 of 949 (744616)
12-13-2014 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by Phat
12-13-2014 7:32 AM


Re: What will make you change your mind ...
quote:
What will make you change your mind?

For me personally, evidence wont likely have me change my mind on a macro level concerning my belief and philosophy, ...

Well, Phat, I would not expect one to change one's whole world view based on one piece of evidence ... in part because I think world views are extremely resistant to overall change.

What I expect is that some lesser beliefs may become questioned\questionable, such as the age of the earth or the actuality of the Noachin Flood.

As an open minded skeptic I see no real problem with belief that doesn't run counter to the evidence of old age in specific and science in general -- science is how we know how the creation works, as it is direct evidence of that creation.

I like your questing approach, no matter how tortuous the path.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 7:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 880 of 949 (744691)
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


A Q of authority
Dwise1,

The main difference between genuine Christian believers and the world in general is that they consider the Bible as the word of God, an authority above man made theories and conclusions.

But because there are apostate bibles and other paraphrased material out there, as well as different gospels and hundreds of false doctrines, the truth in its primitive form is lost among it all, and the paraphernalia out there is used by unbelievers as proof of its shaky foundations.

Then on top of that, creationists make the mistake of trying to naturalize the miracles to fit science.

The first evidence that the true believer has is the word of God and everything else has to be tested by it.

The world on the other hand puts the opinions and conclusions of man above revelation and God. So there is no harmony there.

It does not mean that science cannot be married to creationism, it just means that the conclusions drawn which contradict the Bible have to be left out.

If I were to talk about global flood dynamics, the Bible would be my first and only reference, which has authority over and above the world. It does not matter if other thoughts and conclusions disagree with it.
At the same time, I could have an interpretation of scripture which it does not say, and such is the case of the majority of creationists who do not understand the fundamentals of creation. In which case I would have to be shown from scripture where I am wrong.

The bottom line is that we are prone to make mistakes, both in the field of science and theology, and that we as human beings are not infallible.

I believe that if we place our opinions above nature or God then we are kidding ourselves.

It would be pointless for me to talk about the global flood if my references from the Bible are considered to be of no value. There are many aspects I have discovered about it, which I have yet to hear from creationists.

Having talked about it to other audiences, I am aware that the majority, if not all, are incapable of comprehending what I say, it is a matter of intelligence capacities. I know that sounds narcissistic and arrogant, and even insane, but I have been avoiding saying anything about it for that very reason, not wanting to offend more than already. And now that sounds patronizing.
It is not that others are incapable of knowing, it is just that it is uncommon for someone to have done the homework themselves and exercised their mind to be able to comprehend the facts that scripture makes so plainly.

To date, you have been annoyed that I make outrageous claims, but that is your problem for having squeezed yourself into a certain pigeon hole, which by the way you would like me to do also by asking me to make a statement of where I stand in theology or whatever.

In regards to the outrageous claims, they are very obvious to anyone who has studied the scriptures.


Replies to this message:
 Message 881 by Percy, posted 12-14-2014 7:44 PM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 882 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 8:42 PM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 883 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2014 9:19 PM Colbard has responded
 Message 892 by dwise1, posted 12-17-2014 3:10 PM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 893 by dwise1, posted 12-19-2014 2:50 PM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 894 by dwise1, posted 12-19-2014 3:03 PM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 895 by Rodnas, posted 12-22-2014 7:12 PM Colbard has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15561
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 881 of 949 (744696)
12-14-2014 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Colbard writes:

The bottom line is that we are prone to make mistakes, both in the field of science and theology, and that we as human beings are not infallible.

Are you not human? Are you not fallible?

Having talked about it to other audiences, I am aware that the majority, if not all, are incapable of comprehending what I say, it is a matter of intelligence capacities.

Does not your fallibility include your assessments of your intellectual capacities relative to others?

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where the incompetent tend to overate their own abilities:

Wikipedia writes:

This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

Sounds not too unlike blissful ignorance.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 882 of 949 (744699)
12-14-2014 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
At the same time, I could have an interpretation of scripture which it does not say, and such is the case of the majority of creationists who do not understand the fundamentals of creation. In which case I would have to be shown from scripture where I am wrong.

Really? You are seriously insisting that as long as you are interpreting scripture, the only way to show that you've erred is by citing more scripture?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5655
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(3)
Message 883 of 949 (744706)
12-14-2014 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
The main difference between genuine Christian believers and the world in general is that they consider the Bible as the word of God, an authority above man made theories and conclusions.

They're wrong.

The first evidence that the true believer has is the word of God and everything else has to be tested by it.

"The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it." Robert A. Heinlein

The world on the other hand puts the opinions and conclusions of man above revelation and God. So there is no harmony there.

It does not mean that science cannot be married to creationism, it just means that the conclusions drawn which contradict the Bible have to be left out.

That means that you will ignore any evidence that contradicts your ancient tribal myths. If this is the case, you have absolutely no business even mentioning the word, "Science" let alone pretending that anything you do resembles the scientific method. What you are doing is exactly the opposite of science.

If I were to talk about global flood dynamics, the Bible would be my first and only reference, which has authority over and above the world. It does not matter if other thoughts and conclusions disagree with it.

What the bible says was disproved 200 years ago, and the evidence since that date has must made that disproof even more devastating.

I believe that if we place our opinions above nature or God then we are kidding ourselves.

Scientists do not put their "opinions" (more accurately, their theories) above what the natural world shows. Rather they base their theories directly on what the natural world shows no matter what old tribal myths claim. You are the one who is placing your myths above nature.

It would be pointless for me to talk about the global flood if my references from the Bible are considered to be of no value.

Hey, you're a good sport after all!

Having talked about it to other audiences, I am aware that the majority, if not all, are incapable of comprehending what I say, it is a matter of intelligence capacities.

It is a matter of putting old stories above the evidence that's all around you and that can be easily verified. And it is not a matter of intelligence capabilities--you are perfectly capable of seeing what is around you, but you have willfully put on blinders, and won't see that which you don't want to see. Willful ignorance is not a trait that is admired.

I know that sounds narcissistic and arrogant, and even insane...

Yes, I guess you know best.

In regards to the outrageous claims, they are very obvious to anyone who has studied the scriptures.

True. There are many outrageous claims in scriptures, and many of those have long-since been disproved.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 884 of 949 (744742)
12-15-2014 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by Coyote
12-14-2014 9:19 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Sorry, but you are so wrong and deceived, but then again how could you possibly know that.
The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.

Edited by Colbard, : m


This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2014 9:19 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by Phat, posted 12-15-2014 7:13 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 886 by Percy, posted 12-15-2014 7:36 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 887 by ringo, posted 12-15-2014 11:04 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 888 by jar, posted 12-15-2014 11:13 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 889 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2014 3:56 PM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 890 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2014 5:24 PM Colbard has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 885 of 949 (744743)
12-15-2014 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
How are you doing this morning, Colbard?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo

If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5758
59
6061
...
64Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017