|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: The measure of one's ideas isn't how stubbornly one holds them, but how many they convince. LoL. How many of you do you think I, being a relative loner here, could ever convince of anything, given the wide gap in our thinking and ideologies? Then too, how many creationists do you think you could convince of things related to your mind-set if you were a loner on an evangelical Christian debate board?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I doubt that you can find where I suggested that you should consider God?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: I was a loner on evolutionfairytale forum. I was banned the first time I asked for verifiable evidence. Apparantly, asking for verifiable evidence for something is a sin on fundamentalist websites.
Then too, how many creationists do you think you could convince of things related to your mind-set if you were a loner on an evangelical Christian debate board?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The belief in the posibility wasn't brought forward as a serious proposal waiting to be ruled out, it was just an acknowledgement.
I'm still not understanding how this can be considered belief. I don't think we mean the same things be "belief". I looked up "believe" in the dictionary and on one end it has "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something" and on the other it has "to suppose or assume".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
The actions cannot be evidenced or the entity performing the actions but the results can be evidenced. According to what you said earlier, one should not consider entities that can not be evidenced. Here you are saying that you do.
However in the example under discussion, being on a jury in a trial, we are charged to put aside personal beliefs and to make a decision based solely on the evidence presented. I don't mean to single you out, but it is your personal beliefs that I am trying to discuss with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, maybe you should stop trying to tell me what I say or believe, or actually get it right and in context.
Read what you actually quoted.
jar writes: However in the example under discussion, being on a jury in a trial, we are charged to put aside personal beliefs and to make a decision based solely on the evidence presented. My personal beliefs are my personal beliefs, nothing more. Again, read what I wrote.
jar writes: The actions cannot be evidenced or the entity performing the actions but the results can be evidenced. If you are having trouble reading that I will try different words. If God planted the finger prints we can see the result, the finger prints are there. But we have no way to observe, test, inspect the actual act itself, the act of God planting the finger print. And I am still clueless what it is that you see problematic about my worldview.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
On the contrary - You have made it quite clear that you hold some impossible-to-evidence things in disdain. Things like the notion that all evidence has been falsely planted.
It is the consideration that you give to other equally impossible-to-evidence things that I find amusing. Why you think your own impossible-to-evidence notions are superior to those you show disdain for remains a mystery.
jar writes: If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered? You tell me. Why are some impossible-to-evidence things worthy of consideration and others not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I imagine that you can show a post where I have said that any of my beliefs are superior to anything or where I have ever said that you should consider any impossible to evidence things.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Again, maybe you should stop trying to tell me what I say or believe, or actually get it right and in context. In Message 315 you stated: "If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?" This seemed to be a general statement, but perhaps I am missing some important context. From what I have read, the worldview you are describing is a very conflicted one. On one hand you advocate the view that we should not consider things for which there is no evidence. At the same time, you are professing a personal belief in things that can not be evidenced. I understand that you are NOT prescribing the way in which we SHOULD think. I am merely discussing the way in which you DO think. Am I getting this right? Am I missing something?
If God planted the finger prints we can see the result, the finger prints are there. But we have no way to observe, test, inspect the actual act itself, the act of God planting the finger print. This example keeps getting hung up on the letter of the law so let's move back to one of your earlier examples. If I am reading it correctly, you believe that God inspires people to have certain thoughts, such as not to step in front of a bus or a sudden inspiration to run a specific clinical test. You also seem to indicate that we have no way of evidencing this inspiration. So why do you even consider that this inspiration even occurs since you have no evidence for it, or are you saying that you do believe in things for which there is no evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well of course I believe things where there is no evidence that could be produced for you or anyone else to examine.
That does not man that I do not have sufficient evidence to support my personal beliefs, but it is personal evidence. Might I be wrong or misinterpreting that evidence? Of course.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
That does not man that I do not have sufficient evidence to support my personal beliefs, but it is personal evidence. Might I be wrong or misinterpreting that evidence? Of course. So it is possible to evidence the supernatural, it just happens to be subjective evidence. Is this correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I honestly don't know. It is possible for me to believe that I have evidence, even if that might be wrong. But evidence is totally irrelevant when it comes to the supernatural.
That is the basis of faith.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Hi Buz,
What you originally said was this:
Buzsaw writes: Designation: The Free Thinking Literalist Biblical Evidence Producing Butt Kicking Buzsaw OEC Who Gives Science Doctorates Educated Into Illogical Abstract Theories A Run For The Money In Threads. And you've been arguing this point ever since. PaulK is wondering how you could believe this given all your errors, but there's little to be gained by raising this point unless it's for the benefit of the larger audience, because you're no more likely to recognize your errors now than you were when you first made them. That's why I commented that the measure of one's ideas isn't how stubbornly one holds them, but how many they convince. I think we're all kind of dumbfounded at how successful you think you've been here given that you've convinced no one, including creationists. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I think that if you had decent evidence and sound arguments you could do rather better than you do. The fact that you lack both good evidence and good arguments is a major reason why you do so badly here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
More correctly Panda pointed out - yet again - that Buzsaw's ban from the science forum was not an attempt to silence an effective debater, but instead done to remove an arrogant, ignorant, prejudiced, irrational waste of time.
Buz asked for evidence of his stupidity, probably running one of his typical bluffs - and the rest is history. He never learns...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024