|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: We know perfectly well that you take an anti-scientific attitude whenever science contradicts your beliefs. Denying it is foolish.
quote: Your personal delusions are not science - not even a genuine divine Revelatiin would be science.
quote: One of the greatest strengths of science - the reason WHY it is reliable - is that it does its best to avoid the weaknesses of the human mind. Which is more than can be said for your beliefs. Not surprisingly science is the far more reliable of the two.
quote: In an archaic usage. So even this represents an equivocation. Dishonestly trying to cover up the obvious truth does you no favours, Faith. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Wrong. I suggest that science takes measures to avoid the weaknesses of the human mind. And that makes it better than just really strongly believing something, which is what Faith offers as "science"
quote: You can put your personal beliefs above science but that doesn't make them science. Nor does science's willingness to revise conclusions when better evidence arrives mean that science is worse than faith. Being open-minded and admitting your errors is better than making excuses to pretend you were right all along.
quote: Only an idiot would change their mind that God created the world based on the find of a single transitional fossil - but I don't see why being told a falsehood makes it any worse. Rhodocetus is still evidence for the evolution of whales - speculative elements like the assumed tail fluke aren't even reasons for thinking that it is a transitional in the first place.
quote: The claim being made is that Faith is not anti-science. How can that be answered without referring to Faith ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You can't escape your own fallibility just by believing that your beliefs are infallible.
quote: According to a subjective and fallible belief (which is rather obviously wrong) Since you can't even reliably interpret the Bible - and your belief is a barrier to reliably interpreting the Bible - any claims to special insight are just arrogant delusion. Sorry, I know you don't like accepting that your treasured beliefs can be wrong - even those that don't come from the Bible. But getting trapped in error is hardly a good way to find the truth.
quote: There are plenty of valid critiques of your beliefs. Attributing your beliefs to God doesn't change that. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Obvious misreadings can be detected by any literate person. And your misreadings are indeed obvious.
quote: It doesn't seem to have worked for you. But OK, God, save me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Since I can prove my case and you can't you lose. And I'll defend that any time. A Great Debate thread if you wish.
quote: In other words you lied and I called your bluff. It's funny how "Christians" try to make it sound so easy while hiding a whole lot of other conditions. Remember what you said:
But you are welcome to join us any time by simply asking God to save you
In fact I can't seriously want something that makes no sense to me, nor can I say that I will automatically accept any beliefs you choose to tell me are essential. So I guess that your hidden conditions make it far from "simple".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Yes, well, one would think a person would know you can't ask God for something in such a cavalier way, but OK I wasn't specific enough and you can use the occasion to be right about something it would be better not to be right about.
In fact I did realise that you were lying. And what is it that it "would be better not to be right about" ? And why ?
quote: In other words I am willing to back my claim up - and you are not. Maybe you realise that misrepresenting a pathetically bad commentary is not exactly a good argument. Or maybe I am expecting too much of you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Certainly you don't like it when your ridiculous errors get brought to light. But enough of that. Your attempt to deny that you are anti-science based on definition games and false pride in your own beliefs has failed. As anyone with any sense would expect. And that really is an end to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
What lies ?
I guess you mean - as usual - truths you don't like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Again there is no lie.
But since you insist on refusing to shut up let us look at what a modern online dictionary says that "science' means:
dictionary,com
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. When we describe you as anti-science we usually refer to the second meaning, although the third could equally well apply. And yet your argument refuses to even accept that those definitions exist. So yes, you are playing a definition game by ignoring definitions that are much more common and more applicable before we even get into the question of whether your belief counts as knowledge. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It doesn't matter since your definition game is crucial to your argument and has already failed (apparently your "discernment" failed to notice the obvious there)
But:
quote: Is there any sensible reason to believe this ? Or is it just another product of a "fallen" intellect ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: You say that but you offer no reason to think that there is any real benefit. And believing things in the hope of benefit is hardly a good way to find the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Maybe you find it a benefit to see distorting and twisting the Bible as suoernatural insight - but I don't think that it is good for anything more than your pride.
Add in your notably poor judgement in general and your frequent errors and I have to say I am better off as I am. Even if Christianity turned out to be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Now that is just not true. The abstract of the Nature paper at The evolutionary origin of orphan genes agrees with Taq
...however, de novo evolution out of non-coding genomic regions is emerging as an important additional mechanism. This process appears to provide raw material continuously for the evolution of new gene functions, which can become relevant for lineage-specific adaptations.
And the abstract of the Science paper Human-specific gene ARHGAP11B promotes basal progenitor amplification and neocortex expansion states
ARHGAP11B arose from partial duplication of ARHGAP11A (which encodes a Rho guanosine triphosphatase—activating protein) on the human lineage after separation from the chimpanzee lineage
So you are disagreeing with both papers, and quite obviously so.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024