Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Books By Creationists?
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 119 of 142 (613642)
04-26-2011 2:18 PM


You sure as hell are not using common courtesy through your continued insults that I simply do not deserve.
All you're doing is browbeating me, and I will not respond to being browbeaten or bullied into submission.
And it ceases to be common courtesy when it becomes hard rules. Common courtesy is a request, not a hard rule.
And a request does not have to be granted or followed.
Tram law seems to think
You are the one who's created this, not me. And I will not comply with your request because of your continued attacks against me.
You want me to treat you with respect, you treat me with respect and stop insulting me. I refuse to be in a one way relationship.
And I do not deserve these insults.
I was not being an asshole in the first place.
Thank you for derailing the subject.
Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 120 of 142 (613643)
04-26-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AZPaul3
04-26-2011 2:14 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
Now, other than this post, because one person got really upset over this insignificant and petty issue and insulted me for no reason, I feel no need to comply with this request.
Fair enough. However, I'm not one of the intellectual elite and it would be nice to see to who you reply without having to search a thread of hundreds of messages looking. It also makes following the chain easier since all I have to do is click "This message is a reply to ..." for each message as I backtrack the chain.
It's not done for any other reason than to help follow the chain of long tangled discussions. Please help.
All right, I will, thank you for asking.
But how does one reply when there are multiple posts to reply from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 04-26-2011 2:14 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:23 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 124 by AZPaul3, posted 04-26-2011 2:30 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 128 by jar, posted 04-26-2011 3:10 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 122 of 142 (613645)
04-26-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Theodoric
04-26-2011 2:19 PM


Theodoric writes:
He was asked repeatedly by sleve to stop using the general reply button.
He could only take my post as insulting if he acted like I was afraid he would. At no time did I insult him. It was his decision to act like an ass when the option was given to him.
Here is my post again. It asked very nicely for him to start using the reply button. So not fair enough.
I must agree with Slevesque on one thing.
Please use the reply button on the bottom of each post. When you make a general reply it is more troublesome for us to find the post you are actually responding to. Also, the person you are replying to will get an email saying they have a response. Sleve has requested you do this numerous times and I see you are still not doing it.
If you continue to make general replies I will assume you are just being an asshole and will consider that whenever you post anything.
The last sentence clearly says that I am not calling him an asshole, but would make my determination on his continuing behaviour. I am not the bad guy here.
Yes, you are, because you called me an asshole and insulted me when you didn't need to. And in doing so you're derailing the thread.
Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:19 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 125 of 142 (613649)
04-26-2011 2:38 PM


To the board, I offer my sincere apologies for my behavior.

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by AZPaul3, posted 04-26-2011 2:42 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 136 of 142 (613699)
04-26-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by slevesque
04-26-2011 5:58 PM


Re: Evidence
slevesque writes:
Exactly. An atheist could believe that evolution as it is understood today is correct as far as it goes, but that it's also insufficient as a complete explanation for the diversity of life. Similarly, a physicist in the the 19th century may have affirmed that Newton's theory of gravitation was correct to a certain extent, but that it was also insufficient to explain the natural phenomena that it addressed. As in fact Einstein did indeed do. We could be awaiting the Einstein of biology.
Or an atheist would be perfectly self-consistent to say that he simply didn't know enough about biology to say whether or not ToE was "true," but that he did know enough about how the world works to be fairly certain that a supernatural explanation was not going to be satisfactory.
I believe that a proper scientific attitude toward ToE is to say that it appears to be correct as far as it goes, but it can always be modified to account for as yet undiscovered facts.
When I say evolution here, I am talking about the fact of evolution, not the mechanism of evolution. (when I want to talk about the mechanism, I usually say Neo-Darwinian evolution)

So when I say a complete atheistic worldview must include evolution, I am meaning that the atheist must believe in the fact of evolution. ''biological complexity evolved from simpler forms with time''.
The distinction is important: some atheists do in fact question the mechanism, but I have not yet seen an atheist question if evolution happened at all. In his worldview, evolution must have happened, it is just a matter of knowing why.
An example of this would be Fred Hoyle. He wasn't an anti-evolutionists, he was an anti Neo-Darwinian (and even that I am unsure. I always thought he was simply against chemical evolution ie abiogenesis)
I am responding to the bolded part.
Except that there are atheists who do believe in supernatural without believing in God, thus, you premise is completely wrong.
Buffy Summers, from Buffy The vampire Slayer is a great example of this kind of belief. Even though she is a fictional character, she is still a great example. because no matter that she sees crosses burning vampires and all kinds of supernatural beings, she still doesn't believe in God.
There are atheists who do believe this way. That, they believe that belief in the supernatural is not dependent upon the belief in the existence of God.
And furthermore, you're generalizing again. There are many different flavors and reasons for atheism as there are sects of Christianity. What you are doing is lumping all atheists into one single category and creating what is called a false dichotomy.
And I've already told you, I am an atheist who doesn't fully understand the mechanisms of evolution, so I question it.
But I have also told you that it is not a requirement to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
I haven't made up my mind yet on the issue, but I do defer to the experts on it rather than those who have an agenda to push to keep it out of schools and such.
And even if I did make up mind where I didn't believe in it, I still would not believe in God.
And that alone shows you to be wrong.
Being an atheist is not dependent upon the belief in evolution. Regardless of how you insist it must as well as you trying to mislead people into thinking it must.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 5:58 PM slevesque 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