Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

You might want to put the whole discussion of the fish instead of just quote mining those two lines.

quote:

---

Q--You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
A--I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there: some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.
Q--But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah-- excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?
A--When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale....That is my recollection of it. A big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both what He pleases.
Q--Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long--three days-- and then he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?
A--I am not prepared to say that; the Bible merely says it was done.
Q--You don't know whether it was the ordinary run of fish, or made for that purpose?
A--You may guess; you evolutionists guess.....
Q--You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?
A--The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say.
Q--But do you believe He made them--that He made such a fish and that it was big enough to swallow Jonah?
A--Yes, sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another
Q--Just as hard?
A--It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me. A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can perform. When you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible.
Q--Perfectly easy to believe that Jonah swallowed the whale?
A--If the Bible said so; the Bible doesn't make as extreme statements as evolutionists do....

---

---

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

Hi BD, You made a claim. I asked you, quite nicely I thought, to back it up. Trying to distract us by demanding evidence for an entirely irrelevant claim isn't going to work. The ToE is not at question right now. Your Ebert/NDE claim is.I am going to assume from your latest descent into a childish temper tantrum that you have no evidence that Ebert ever had a near-death experience. I am going to further assume that you heard something about his (very sad) illness, got a bit confused and thought he'd had a near-death experience. That or you just made the whole thing up. But I'm betting on a misapprehension.Disagree? Feel free to back up your own claims any time. Or we could move on to some other example of a near-death experience, so you can get that hopelessly wrong instead. Ain't I a stinker? It might though, give you some insight as to why scientists don't value personal anecdote as a form of evidence. Projection is fun! Case in point. That's what you would like to claim you said. here's what you really said; and: You were wrong then and you're still wrong, only now you've decided to tell a few silly lies about it. Another triumph for creationist rhetoric.I can't be arsed to wade through all of your little fantasy. Fortunately there's no need; what we actually said is still up on the board for all to see. You're a very strange man Bolders.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

If you're trying to lie about your bullshit on this thread, then I'm not surprised you didn't link to it.

You can't possibly be serious, are you?Do you even know any atheists? I've never met or heard of a single one who came from a background of faith who didn't describe the process of conversion to atheism as being primarily a frightening, alienating period of their lives.Many atheists can't even come out to their loved ones; that's how profoundly society associates atheism with immorality and untrustworthiness. It certainly wasn't an easy process with my Christian family. Take a look at some deconversion stories if you genuinely labor under the misapprehension that there's anything easy about conversion to atheism: Nonreligious Questions What "atheist geologists" were those? Please be specific. No high school textbook, on any subject, is going to ask students to put anything to the test. Elementary and high school pedagogy, for better or for worse, is about telling students the way it is and expecting them to remember it. I'd prefer it if students in high school were challenged more, challenged to do some of the experiments and research that lead to the state of knowledge we have, but they don't. It's not a conspiracy to shelter evolution from challenge, it's simply the consistent, across-the-board state of education in America. You may have noticed that your friend's son wasn't challenged to independently corroborate the Holocaust, either.That said by the time they enter college they are performing experiments that test and confirm the mechanisms of evolution. I did many as a freshman, and every year since. Maybe you will too, if you choose to pursue study in the biological sciences in college. Is it? Can you give an example from the peer-reviewed literature? What was the last scientific study you read that you thought blended science and "metaphysics"? Please be specific - I'm looking for authors, title, and date and journal of publication.

Hi marc. I'm curious about this statement of yours: Is that a position that you sincerely hold? If so, I am truly impressed by the open-mindedness it evokes. If I understand it correctly, you are asserting a fundamental basis for freedom of choice with regard to religious belief. By acknowledging that no one, and no single religious creed, has a "monopoly" on defining "the meaning of life", you are admitting that Christianity is only one among (potentially) innumerable, equally valid points of view on this matter.That strikes me as a remarkably refreshing point of view to be coming from an otherwise dogmatic Christian theist. I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, because I would not have expected that from you.In any case, I need to point something out about the atheist position that you are apparently missing (the opinions of Frank Crick, whoever he is, notwithstanding):I think that your statement (if I understood it correctly) would still be true without your "if" condition; that is, if meaning does not come from a creator, no human can claim a monopoly on it, in a way that physically intrudes on other peoples lives.In other words, it makes no difference whether we attribute our respective meanings to supernatural or natural causes. The fact remains that we all perceive and conceive meaning in our lives. It's part of being human; it's intrinsic to our cognitive toolkit.You can believe that this sense of "meaning" was deliberately designed and implanted in us by some inexplicable entity who is responsible for all existence. I can believe that it is in fact an emergent property that follows naturally from the general principles governing the evolution of life, that its "design" is as much a natural outcome of physical laws as the hexagonal pattern of snowflakes and the curvature of rainbows. Either way, we must both acknowledge that our current understanding is limited...The major difference between us is that your position can only be held and promoted by appeal to religious belief or dogma, whereas mine can find confirmation in real-world observations.You may fail to grasp why my notion of "meaning" is equivalent to yours, given that mine is not asserted to be the creation of a supernatural being. I certainly fail to grasp why attribution to a supernatural being adds anything of consequence to the notion.In either case, we both perceive and conceive of meaning in life. We all experience emotions; we love our parents, our siblings, our spouses, our children; we cooperate with our neighbors to further the common goals that benefit our communities. These things apply regardless of the choice of religion, and regardless of the presence or absence of religious belief. If you don't agree with that, you are actually contradicting your statement that I quoted above (or else I must have misunderstood your statement).One last comment to expand on Crashfrog's notion "that humans are the source of their own meaning." In my own view: the universe prior to the existence of life cannot be said to have any meaning. Meaning is something that arises from awareness, and without life, there is no awareness. As life emerges and evolves, awareness develops, and with that comes a meaning -- a purpose: to continue living, to grow, to diversify, to acquire broader capabilities, to overcome adversity, perhaps to "transcend" (though I'm not sure what this term really means).As life succeeds in its purpose, awareness expands; in the case of our particular species, it has expanded to the point of self-awareness, of realizing that we have a purpose, and the ability to consider it. This is a confusing situation to be in, especially since human development has been marked by a tendency to ascribe causality to unknowable entities, rather than trying to work out how things came about naturally.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

yet those Christians seem to expect it from others with absurdity like Pascals wager. I didn't choose to be atheist anymore then I choose to pass gas. I can hold it in but that would be rather painful and will come out sooner or later.How does one choose to not believe something? I cannot choose to believe in a deity as in my mind it's unnecessary and in most cases absurdity. It's seems you know nothing about Darwin or his beliefs. These are used to show why your argument doesn't make sense to us. Unfortunately if we make up
an example of something we see as the same you get offended. ....

You: And more incorrect statements from you that you can't hide from: Now at this point there are only two possibilities, you didn't know that Dawkins has hypothesized and referenced other people who also hypothesize this (repeatedly in fact) about the possibility of life beginning from flecks of silicon crystal, or the like, as the first non-living replicators; or you DID know that he has hypothesized about this.If you didn't know then you are ignorant of claims made (not just by him) about the theory you claim to know so much about, or you DID know that he has hypothesized, but are a liar. So which do you prefer that I call you, ignorant, or a liar, or both?I mean because its written right there, those are your words correct? I am not misquoting you am I? You did ask for me to show you where he has said "any such thing" right? And English is your first language, correct?And furthermore these are YOUR words right Granny: Now from the Selfish Gene (that's a Richard Dawkins book, do you know that?: So which is it Granny, you knew Dawkins had spoken of this possibility before, or you didn't know, please choose one.I prefer to call you a liar (since that is what you have called ME for pointing out the facts to you) but I guess I am just as happy to call you ignorant (or dumb as you prefer).Now of course, we both know that you understand English so well (I am mean look at your nearly flawless spelling corrections you made-I think you only got two words wrong) so you do understand what it means when you say that Dawkins never said any such thing right? You understand that meaning right??? And you also know what silicates are right? You are not going to try to hide with that boner of a lie again are you.So what I really want to ask you is, What kind of gall, what kind of audacity, what utter fucking shamelessness do you have to have to call ME the liar in this discussion? And you are going to say to me that you are polite? How shitty are you Granny, how completely shitty? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.Edited by Bolder-dash, : So Granny can't use a typo as a smokescreen for her utterly shameless dishonesty.

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.

​

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Those are from the forum guidelines.

Hi Bolderdash,You seem to have an extremely profound reading comprehension problem. Every one of your examples of someone else's error was actually of glaring errors in understanding on your part of the most basic sort. They're such fundamentally simple and obvious errors that I'm beginning to wonder if you're making these errors on purpose to disrupt and distract discussion and whether you're actually a troll.Let's just stick to the topic, shall we? Can you provide any substantiation whatsoever of your Ebert supernatural near-death experience story, or of your other near-death experience story where someone flatlined, recovered, and then described conversations that took place while he was dead?At least one thing's very clear. Whatever you personally might believe about the way evolutionists think, we sure don't think like you do.--Percy

For a supposed religious person you sure are a hypocrite. Do you wonder why other religious people on this forum, such as ICANT, Buzz and others do not back you up in your conflict with Granny Magda. You not only made a fool of yourself on the "When does design become intelligent?" thread, now you are trying to continue your infantile tirade on this thread.Furthermore, it seems you are misconstruing what Dawkin's is talking about in the selfish gene. This is what is called "quote mining" and is an infamous tactic used by creationists to take what scientists say out of context and use it against them. Here is what Dawkins says in complete context: So basically Dawkins is sugesting that the first replicators COULD have consisted of inorganic molecules instead of organic ones, specifically inorganic replicating molecules in clay (not sand) as proposed by organic chemist and molecular biologist, Graham Cairns-Smith. There is no indication there that he actually believed this to be 100% true or correct, just that it was a possibility. In fact, the clay theory of abiogenesis is one of several that have been proposed (but have not been confirmed).Anywho, back to the point. Please provide evidence of an "out of body experience" besides mere hearsay. Or are you going to keep throwing up irrelevent posts in order to defelect your unsubstantiated claims.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Where did I err Percy? What did I not understand?You have constantly just thrown out these one line little jabs, as if they mean something-"Can you understand English, you have comprehension problems, you make no sense...Blah blah."Well why don't you explain articulately, what didn't I understand?I didn't understand that Granny said Dawkins never talked about the hypothesis of life originating from silicon crystals-when he actually did? I didn't understand that? Because I am quite sure I did.I didn't understand that she tried to say I was lying and made that up? I am sure I did understand that Percy.I didn't understand that she tried to worm her way out of it by then saying that was an old concept. or that he was referring to clay and not sand, or that she never said that and I was putting words in her mouth. I didn't understand all those things? Because I am quite sure I did understand Percy.I didn't understand after all of that she STILL tries to say I am the one who was lying? I think I understood quite well, thank you.I also understand that the topic of this thread is about how creationists think evolutionists think. And I personally think you are quite dishonest.Tell me which part I didn't understand. Because I understood everything you and Granny said.

Oh, come on, stop playing dumb, everyone is commenting about your comprehension problems. It's not like they aren't as obvious as all get out. If you'd like to begin a thread about it over in Coffee House then go ahead and we'll attempt to help you as much as we are able, though I don't hold out much hope since the same comprehension problems will still be in play as we try to explain your comprehension problems to you - talk about a Catch 22! It's almost as if your strategy is to behave so stupidly that no one can ignore it so that you can derail the discussion onto how mistreated you are. The goal of EvC Forum is to have discussions that actually get somewhere, but with you we're stuck on explaining what simple English sentences mean.So back to the topic. Can you provide any substantiation whatsoever of your Ebert supernatural near-death experience story, or of your other near-death experience story where someone flatlined, recovered, and then described conversations that took place while he was dead? If we have something concrete to work from then it will be easier to assess how well they qualify as scientific evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You are making me laugh now. You are just taking the piss out of me, right?On your pro-evolution website everyone can agree its me who has the comprehension problems? Ha, ha..that's a good one Percy. You and Granny and Dr. A are now the voices of objective reason.Have you even bothered to look at what the topic is about? Hint-its not entitled Bolder-dash needs to provide evidence of supernatural phenomenon. Its about what creationists think evolutionists think! Who is the one being intentionally stupid?Hahaha...let's get back on topic!!! Oh, man, that's a good one. You had me going with that. You really did, when you repeated the whole explaining what English means prank. Your parody was turning nearly slapstick, that's why you had me going..I was like Percy, he has really lost it...oh no no silly, he is taking the piss. Whew.Man, and you never even cracked a smile, that's the beauty..how, how do you keep a straight face? You have even outdone you. Its a classic. Thank God you never erase posts, because this one is a rare prize for posterity.I can't understand anything you said, its way too complex!!You are the Master!

Can he even tell us what the term Flatlined means and what the indicator that flatlined is measuring? I really think that might be part of the problem.Maybe he thinks that the indicator has something to do with the brain?Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

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

So which do you believe, When Granny said Dawkins NEVER hypothesized anything about the possibility of silicon being an early building block of life (or an early ancestor as Dawkins puts it) and then called me a liar for suggesting such a stupid thing, did she actually already know Dawkins had said this, or do you think she was unaware of it at the time? Which do you think?Are evolutionists dishonest, or just ignorant of their subject matter?