Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 181 of 318 (450696)
01-23-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by pelican
01-23-2008 8:50 AM


Re: My misconceptions
Heinrik writes:
Ahh, I should have said "alledged" misconceptions because I don't know what they are. However, your reply infers that you do and I would be truly very happy to try and help you with your misconceptions if you would care to articulate what they are.
Education might transform you into someone who understands how hilarious that is.

What if you educated folk are too educated to understand some of us? - Heinrik

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 8:50 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 9:31 AM nwr has replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 182 of 318 (450699)
01-23-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by nwr
01-23-2008 8:56 AM


Re: My misconceptions
why is that? Did you not answer 'yes' when I asked if you would not mind your learning about your own misconceptions concerning evolution?
Why did you say absolutely to this question when you don't have a clue what your misconceptions are? Do you think you have misconceptions or not?
When asked the same question, Radz response also inferred he knew the nature of his own misconceptions. [post 169]
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by nwr, posted 01-23-2008 8:56 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by nwr, posted 01-23-2008 10:20 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 194 by jar, posted 01-23-2008 11:29 AM pelican has replied
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2008 7:12 PM pelican has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 183 of 318 (450701)
01-23-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by pelican
01-22-2008 9:34 PM


Re: shoe on the other foot
Are you sure about this? What does typically mean?
It means that critical thinking skills, logical analysis of an argument, and general skepticism are not inborn traits for the vast majority of people, and they must be learned. Higher education does not only teach facts, though that is part of it; more importantly, education teaches a person how to think in order to distinguish a rational, convincing argument from a logically flawed position.
Good question! Have you an alternative?
If a person is continuing to parrot disinformation after being told, repeatedly that their information is inaccurate?
If I argued against the existence of elephants by claiming elephants are supposed to be able to fly like in the movie Dumbo, and you informed me that, not only do elephants exist, my information is incorrect and they cannot fly, and I continued to argue that they cannot possibly exist because ears are not wings, you would think I was either an idiot, stubborn, or simply dishonest. And you'd be right.
Another great question that I will offer an answer to. Ignorance and stupidity become a positive when others' (who do not possess the traits) derive benefit from these traits in others.
Are you kidding? The only time I can think of this happening is when a person of greater intelligence takes advantage of a less intelligent person for monetary gain. You know, like used car salesmen, or Televangelists.
Ask yourself if you would like to learn about the misconceptions you have on Evolution?
I don't think you understood my statement. The Theory of Evolution is very specific. It makes certain statements, and does not make others. Creationists tend, almost universally, to insist that the Theory of Evolution makes predictions that, in fact, it does not. Since scientists are the ones who define the Theory of Evolution, they would be the group in a position to dictate what the predictions and statements of the theory actually are. When Creationists make claims about the statements and predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that are simply untrue, it's no more valid than a 5-year-old claiming that the Theory of Gravity says that elephants should be able to fly by flapping their ears. Much like Christians get to decide what their particular brand of the faith believes, and an outsider who claims they believe something else would be the one in the wrong.
If I have any misconceptions regarding the Theory of Evolution and what its claims actually are, I fully expect and welcome correction from people who actually know better. This group, typically, does not include Creationists with a 5th grade or lower understanding of scientific concepts.
I am sure this is genuine but is 'going easy' on someone helping them to understand? This doesn't mean you try the opposite of being hard on them which also does not work. The methods of trying to communicate and understand, noble as they may be, are not working.
Who amongst the educated communicators can or wants to communicate on anothers' level, other than their own? Why do many creationists and evolutionists fail to reach a common understanding? Maybe because they just want to change each others' minds or win the argument.
If your position were true, then no teacher, anywhere, would ever be able to teach a student, as people of lesser intelligence cannot understand people of greater intelligence. Were you not able to learn to read in grade school despite your teacher possessing a vastly greater level of knowledge on the subject?
When I say we "take it easy," I mean that - many of us avoid direct argument and the heated debate that goes on here otherwise, and focus on helping the new individual to understand what the position of science actually is. We don't care about whether they eventually "convert" to Evolutionists - the goal is simply helping them to understand what they're arguing against, so that their arguments are not set against a false Theory of Evolution that doesn't really exist and no scientist believes.
I expect you to not be condescending with me when I do not understand or agree with you. I do not expect anyone to be condescending with me. I expect to be treated equally well as you expect to be treated. Have you experienced someone being condescending with you as an adult?
Kids have to put up with it but I do not! I hope my reply answers many of your questions.
I most certainly have experienced condescension. The problem here is that I simply don't care if I come across as condescending to a Creationist who insists on using scientific terms incorrectly after being shown they are wrong a hundred times. If a Creationist asks me to explain to them what the Theory of Evolution actually says as opposed to what Answersingenesis or Ray Comfort say that it says, I'll try to avoid condescension and speak to the person in a respectful and hopefully helpful manner. If they insist, after being corrected for the hundredth time, that the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory," or that it predicts that we should see monkeys giving birth to cows, I'll treat them like the idiots they are.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 9:34 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 10:21 AM Rahvin has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 184 of 318 (450702)
01-23-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by pelican
01-23-2008 8:50 AM


Re: My misconceptions
Heinrik,
Heinrik writes:
How would you know you had misconceptions?
Heinrik then writes:
I would be truly very happy to try and help you with your misconceptions if you would care to articulate what they are.
Do you happen to see a small contradiction there at all?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 8:50 AM pelican has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 185 of 318 (450705)
01-23-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by pelican
01-23-2008 9:31 AM


Re: My misconceptions
Heinrik writes:
why is that? Did you not answer 'yes' when I asked if you would not mind your learning about your own misconceptions concerning evolution?
No, I didn't. That was NosyNed
Why did you say absolutely to this question when you don't have a clue what your misconceptions are?
I didn't. That was jar
When asked the same question, Radz response also inferred he knew the nature of his own misconceptions. [post 169]
RAZD's post (Message 166, not 169) did not infer anything. You might have inferred something from his post (an incorrect inference, by the way).
Do you think you have misconceptions or not?
It is always possible that I might have misconceptions. However, as is the nature of misconceptions, I would not be aware of them and that is why I would appreciate somebody else explaining them to me.

What if you educated folk are too educated to understand some of us? - Heinrik

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 9:31 AM pelican has not replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 186 of 318 (450706)
01-23-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Rahvin
01-23-2008 9:42 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
Are you kidding? The only time I can think of this happening is when a person of greater intelligence takes advantage of a less intelligent person for monetary gain. You know, like used car salesmen, or Televangelists.
Are you kidding? It is happening daily all around the world. It becomes a positive gain for some when 'uneducated' people do all the poorest paid jobs because that is all they can get, if they are lucky. But especially so in the poorer countries where the tobacco industry and other big business like Nike completely exploit them.
If I have any misconceptions regarding the Theory of Evolution and what its claims actually are, I fully expect and welcome correction from people who actually know better. This group, typically, does not include Creationists with a 5th grade or lower understanding of scientific concepts.
I don't think you understood my point which is: when you point out to creationists their misconceptions about creation (not the other way around), how do you respond to them on their chosen subject?
For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 9:42 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 10:39 AM pelican has replied
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2008 10:42 AM pelican has replied
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 01-23-2008 10:59 AM pelican has replied
 Message 193 by faust, posted 01-23-2008 11:11 AM pelican has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 187 of 318 (450708)
01-23-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by pelican
01-23-2008 5:01 AM


Re: Anything is possible
dameeva writes:
You dismissed Heinriks' concept as silly. Could this be the example of 'why some people are incapable of recognizing when they don't know something'? To be specific, in this case because it is not understood the reader automatically assumes it is 'silly'.
Heinrik's response in Message 158 was even sillier, and Rahvin, Molbiogirl, RAZD and Teen4christ all carefully explained to Heinrik how he was once again only contributing more evidence for the premise of this thread.
dameeva writes:
Your analysis is spot on. Your only 'mistake' is in thinking it isn't you.
I explained why it was silly, when Heinrik replied it was explained at length and in painful detail why he was just proving the thread's point, and all you can do is say it's not him it's me? All you're doing is providing yet more evidence of a common creationist pattern, namely ignoring the evidence and going, "Nuh-uh!"
Too bad this thread has to end at 300 posts, because the creationist side is apparently intent upon providing an endless supply of examples of the very point this thread is trying to make.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 5:01 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 10:40 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 201 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 11:04 PM Percy has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 188 of 318 (450709)
01-23-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by pelican
01-23-2008 10:21 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
Are you kidding? It is happening daily all around the world. It becomes a positive gain for some when 'uneducated' people do all the poorest paid jobs because that is all they can get, if they are lucky. But especially so in the poorer countries where the tobacco industry and other big business like Nike completely exploit them.
That's why I was pointing out that lack of education is not a positive. Sweatshops are bad, even if they give us cheap shoes. Hell...they aren't even cheap.
There is no situation where ignorance and stupidity are good things, unless you're a monster who likes taking advantage of people.
I don't think you understood my point which is: when you point out to creationists their misconceptions about creation (not the other way around), how do you respond to them on their chosen subject?
For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?
I would respond that, while such a position is supported by the text of Genesis, there is no corroborative evidence to give this story any more credence than any other myth.
You're moving the goalposts. I don't tell Creationists what Creationism is. I listen for them to tell me what their position is, and if I see a flaw in their argument or a falsehood, I point it out. Evolutionists don't dictate to Creationists what Creationists believe - we let them say what they believe, and then we argue against that position.
I don't claim to have superior knowledge of Creationism. I've read the Bible, and used to be a Christian, but Creationists have such varied positions it's not possible to really pin them down to one standard.
Creationists, however, come and attack Evolution from faulty positions, like claiming that, since Evolution predicts monkeys should give birth to housecats, or since Evolution predicts that we should see new life in a peanut butter jar, and both of these positions are false, Evolution must also be false.
The problem is that Evolution makes no such predictions. Yet when told this, the Creationist continues to attack the same strawman of Evolution until he gets banned from the science forums.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 10:21 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 7:07 AM Rahvin has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 189 of 318 (450710)
01-23-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Percy
01-23-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Anything is possible
We should definitely make a Part II. Irony on this level must be allowed to continue, if only to see how far it goes before they realize they're proving our own point - even with us saying as much directly in the thread.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 01-23-2008 10:26 AM Percy has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 190 of 318 (450711)
01-23-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by pelican
01-23-2008 10:21 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
quote:
For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?
Assuming that you are trying to create a comparable example - the question should be over what the Bible says - not over what really happened. In that case I would read the relevant chapter of Genesis, and note that it refers to the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If this is a relevant distinction in the context of the discussion I would point it out, quoting the relevant verses. If it is not relevant then I would accept that.
On the other hand, a creationist in the same position would likely not even look at what the Bible said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 10:21 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 7:57 AM PaulK has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 191 of 318 (450713)
01-23-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by pelican
01-23-2008 10:21 AM


Heinrik writes:
when you point out to creationists their misconceptions about creation (not the other way around), how do you respond to them on their chosen subject?
Speaking for myself, I point out to them that they don't know everything about their "chosen subject" either. Their sloppy thinking on scientific matters is usually consistent with sloppy thinking in matters Biblical.
For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?
I'd start with a nitpick: Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not from a tree of general knowledge. As far as we know, they acquired the rest of their knowledge the same way as we do, by observing the world around them.
I'd also mention that - literally true or not - the important point in the Adam and Eve story is that they acquired the knowledge of good and evil, not how they acquired it. If the details of the story don't seem to be literally true based on our observations of the real world, that doesn't mean we have to reject the point of the story.
Bottom line: I'd point out that there are more alternatives than keeping the bathwater or throwing the baby out with it.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 10:21 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 8:38 AM ringo has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 192 of 318 (450714)
01-23-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by pelican
01-23-2008 8:50 AM


Re: My misconceptions
Ahh, I should have said "alledged" misconceptions because I don't know what they are. However, your reply infers that you do and I would be truly very happy to try and help you with your misconceptions if you would care to articulate what they are.
Unlike the creationist side, the science minded folks here have a rather consistent set of ideas about their understandings of the real world.
You can, in fact, know my views by reading what I have posted here or by reading the posts of most anyone else supporting science here since we are so consistent.
You can take any misconception you think any scientist has and start out treating it as if it is mine. Open a thread on that topic and ask me to comment on it and I'll tell you if it is my "misconception" or not.
Edited by NosyNed, : fix dbcodes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 8:50 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 8:43 AM NosyNed has not replied

faust 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 01-16-2008


Message 193 of 318 (450716)
01-23-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by pelican
01-23-2008 10:21 AM


Re: shoe on the other foot
quote:
I don't think you understood my point which is: when you point out to creationists their misconceptions about creation (not the other way around), how do you respond to them on their chosen subject?
As several have mentioned, I do not respond on their subject but on the flaws of their subject. If someone claims a magical sky pixie created dinosaurs and humans to live together over a 3 day time frame, then I point out the inconsistency of that view with the evidence.
quote:
For instance, I post a statement that I believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. If you don't think this is true, how would you respond?
Well, that would be a red herring and I would call it as such. The only relevance it would have is if the Christian tried to use it to putty in the plot holes of their world view to try and explain away imperfections and mutation. Outside of that specific niche it would have no use in the conversation. Sometimes it is brought up to fill those plot holes, other times it is brought up to try and build an ad hominem about a fallen mind trying to grasp their particular magic sky pixie.
Of course, if they prefer to debate philosophy to science we could have a field day with that particular act of the Christian pixie's bad parenting skills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 10:21 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 8:23 AM faust has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 194 of 318 (450720)
01-23-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by pelican
01-23-2008 9:31 AM


First step.
The first step to take before posting something like the message I am replying to is to actually read and make sure that you fully comprehend the post YOU are replying to. That is a very important step that many folk seem to neglect and skip over.
Why did you say absolutely to this question when you don't have a clue what your misconceptions are? Do you think you have misconceptions or not?
This is a great example.
Say what?
I said "Absolutely." Note the period following the word absolutely. That short sentence referred to my desire to have any of my misconceptions challenged and corrected.
Of course I do not have a clue what all of my misconceptions are, I do know that I have many in many fields; there is so much I do not know and very likely misunderstand about cosmology, biology, physics, literature, history, theology, soccer, flavors of ice cream, the nature of love, relationships, numerology, UFOs, Big Foot, and why people chew gum. Possibly there are even other areas where I have many misconceptions.
But the term misconception also includes the concept that I am unaware of the errors, since if I was aware of them I would change that particular held belief.
There exists a body of my current and past conceptions in the form of posts here at EvC and other locations.
If someone should find within that body of conceptions some that are wrong, then by all means I would hope that the finder would point them out to me and make their best possible case in support of their point of view.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 9:31 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 8:53 AM jar has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 195 of 318 (450762)
01-23-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by pelican
01-23-2008 4:38 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Dameeva, nice selective quoting out of context!
You quote me as saying
but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong.
Note carefully that the quote begins with a lower case "b" in addition to the fact that sentences tend not to begin with "but". You missed out the start of the sentence. The whole thing reads
We can repeat ourselves until we're blue in the face, but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong.
The next question to ask is what the actual sentence is referring to and the answers are to be found, funnily enough, in the preceding sentence which is actually a question
In the face of this sort of obstinacy, what are we to do?
This gives rise to yet another question - what is being refered to by the phrase
this sort of obstinacy
Given that the word "this" appears in the sentence a reasonable conclusion is that previous sentences refer to a particular occurrence. Lo and behold, the previous two paragraphs give us all this information.
A poster on here once claimed that the number of possible sequences of animo acids which could make up a chain of DNA was huge, since there were about 20 amino acids to choose from for each position on the DNA molecule. On that basis, he declared evolution to have been impossible and presented his calculations to demonstrate this.
When it was pointed out to this poster that DNA chains weren't made up of amino acids, but nucleotide bases, of which there are only four (thus making his calculations worthless) he was having none of it. He knew best. I make chains of DNA on a daily basis - it's called PCR (polymerase chain reaction). I add the building blocks and an enzyme to glue them together. I add four nucleotide building blocks. I add no amino acids (other than those which make up the enzyme). At the end of it, I have the same number of amino acids I started with, very few nucleotide bases left and I now have strands of DNA made from the nucleotide bases I added. Even after this, our poster still insisted that amino acids make up the sequence in DNA, not nucleotides.
So we can conclude that the obstinacy referred to is absolutely nothing to do with beliefs or opinions and everything to do with hard, incontrovertable facts. You can state until you're blue in the face that whether DNA is made up of a chain of amino acids or made up of a chain of nucleotides is a matter of opinion, but you're dead wrong. As an exercise, why don't you attempt to support the equal validity of the two "opinions" (note that "opinions" is in quotation marks).
This is what I was explaining in my first post. The person making the claim knew damn all about molecular biology, demonstrated admirably by his insistence that DNA is made up of a chain of amino acids. Even when corrected by a practicing molecular biologist, he still insisted that he was right. Now, I could have gone into the lab and tried it his way, but I've watched my way work for years. Not only that, but every molecular biologist in the world knows that it works and many of them actually do it every day in the lab and it works right in front of their eyes. I'm not the only one. Now explain to me why equal weight should be given to this other person's "opinion". He could have gone off and checked what I was telling him - I certainly went off to find sources for what he was saying and the only sources I found were his very own posts on EvC. Sadly, he didn't, he was so certain that he was right that he refused to do this simple thing. To this day he's probably posting on other fora with his "wonderful" calculation.
In the face of the obstinacy described in the paragraph immediately preceding this sentence, I ask again, what do we do? Your idea of giving equal weight to their opinions and claiming that the difference is a result of physical and spiritual approaches doesn't wash, and you'd realise this if you take the trouble to read what I've written with a modicum of care, rather than reading only selected highlights.
You've actually provided a perfect example of what I call "sloppy reading". You've cherry-picked only those bits that you like, ignored the rest and built up a strawman of my position. I don't think you've done this intentionally.
Your other point which you brought up first concerns whether I listen to creationists arguments and evidence concerning creation "with understanding". I'd love to listen to their evidence concerning creation "with understanding", but they've yet to present any. Believe me, I've been listening to creationists on this site for about four years and, yes, I do understand where they're coming from. Here is a statement of my beliefs in relation to this matter
I believe in God the Father, the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through Him all things were made.
For us men (and women, hopefully) and for our salvation He came down from Heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man.
For our sins He was crucified under Pontius Pilot. He suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one holy, catholic (read "inclusive", not Roman Catholic) and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Care to point out to me where my beliefs are built solely on physical evidence? You've actually made a bunch of assumptions and built your position on them. What happens to your position when the assumptions are shown to be false?
I have asked myself the questions that you ask me. I do have some sympathy for the position of creationists. I came to this board as a scientist and a Christian, neither one of which was ascendant over the other. My beliefs as a Chrisian have to gel with the physical evidence I see with my own eyes. However the scientist in me has to draw a very hard distinction between faith/belief and evidence. I would never debate my Christianity based on evidence, since it is faithbased. I would never debate science based on faith, since it is evidence-based.
To Schraff and Admin:_ I'm sorry if some of this is a tad off-topic, but I think it might help dameeva understand exactly where I'm coming from.
Edited by Trixie, : To add my brand new signature and see what it looks like!

I don't consider rape awful
I've studied it
I've seen pictures of the victims
I also interviewed one
Isn't that what evolution involves?
I try not to talk to many women about it either, they seem to be very immature
Amen, EvC Chatroom, 23.1.08

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 4:38 AM pelican has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024