Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
78 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (8 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,411 Year: 5,159/23,288 Month: 280/1,784 Week: 167/211 Day: 15/60 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 69 (187807)
02-23-2005 2:21 PM


--sorry im very new and wasn't sure where to post this--

WOW! O.O

i have been here for a few hours reading, looking, and thinking about posting (ok i made one post).

I would call myself christian, well Roman Catholic actually, and I think of myself as a creationist. After reading posts on here from others who say they are creationists, I am embarrassed to call myself one, geez! I realize people make errors (I'm really good at this, as you can probably see from my grammar), and the scientists have thier own language, but come on! The creationists make some generalized opinions and think they are stating facts that even I can see are wrong.

This will be a learning expierience for me and that is why I am here. I hope to say something but for now I will sound like a evolutionist so I'm just going to keep reading. Some of this stuff is really funny.

After talking smack I will now open myself up for it.
I am a creationist because of a few simple reasons/personal opinions on the issue.

1. I do not think that either side of the issue has definate 100% proof, and reguardless on what side of the fence you are on requires some ever so small amount of faith in your side of the arguement. even if it is just faith that science will find the answer and is on the right path. If I personally am going to pick a side and use faith, my faith goes to God a creationism. I could be wrong (it happens multiple times daily), and then I would have to switch sides.

2. The other probable reason for me is that I am not a positivist. Positivism is not the only philosophy out there when it comes to reasearch, and I believe Positivism is esentially flawed (because it relies on observation and objectivity).

other than that evolution sounds great.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 02-25-2005 12:34 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2005 2:01 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 02-25-2005 4:22 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Buzsaw, posted 02-26-2005 3:48 PM Vercingetorix has responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 15 of 69 (188462)
02-25-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by nator
02-25-2005 8:26 AM


haven't figured out how to quote yet so bear with me.

SCRAFINATOR SAID "Lastly, if you are a Roman Catholic, are you not aware that the Pope declared it OK to accept Biology these days?"

yeah, and after reading a lot of posts it seems like Catholic Schools teach biology better than public ones.

RAND AL'THOR SAID "It is not the realm of Science to "prove" anything.
CRASHFROG SAID "Side with both your faith and the evidence, and go with God and evolution. Why, after all, are they incompatible? "
RESURRECTED HECTOR SAID "Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything,"

I think that Science and the scietific method are both part of the Positivist Philosophy, and there fore trying to PROVE!
C-Frog and R-Hector both talk about EVIDENCE. evidence leads to proof and there fore DOES PROVE, Science Proves.
C-Frog: I don't think that God and Evolution are incompatable (in fact, most catholics i know think that God created the world through evolution). it is unacceptable for me because of faith. if something can be proven no faith is needed, if you ever need faith in science, because it is not proving anything it is junk science (like phrenology). if you can't prove it, by repeatable observation it shouldn't be science.

look i think that creationism is the least likely scenario, but if i am true to my scientific roots, TOE is more likely, but until proven, still wrong.

FAITH, has no place in SCIENCE!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 8:26 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:04 AM Vercingetorix has responded
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2005 11:40 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 12:28 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 35 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 6:54 PM Vercingetorix has responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 17 of 69 (188472)
02-25-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-25-2005 10:04 AM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
thank you for your help :)

Main Entry: ten·ta·tive
Pronunciation: 'ten-t&-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin tentativus, from Latin tentatus, past participle of tentare, temptare to feel, try
1 : not fully worked out or developed
2 : HESITANT, UNCERTAIN
- tentative noun
- ten·ta·tive·ly adverb
- ten·ta·tive·ness noun

^^^^from webster dictionary

so you are certainly uncertain about evolution and relativity?
that doesn't sound very scientific to me.

If you said tentative instead of wrong you'd be right on.

well I agree that TOE is tentative. it is very uncertain, and a faith call and since you agree that FAITH has no place in SCIENCE, how can you take that leap (of faith) for TOE?
because I cannot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:04 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:49 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 02-25-2005 11:13 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 02-25-2005 11:27 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2005 12:59 PM Vercingetorix has responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 28 of 69 (188530)
02-25-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
02-25-2005 12:59 PM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
I will be the first to admit that my knowledge in this area is not vast. I really appriciate everyone's comments, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2005 12:59 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2005 3:37 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 33 of 69 (188554)
02-25-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Lammy
02-25-2005 4:30 PM


Well, the reason creos don't attack these theories is because at least some aspects of them are part of normal everyday life. Who in his right mind would want to say that germs don't cause disease or that the planets orbit the sun in rectangular orbits?

and maybe because this IS the EvC, and evolution is the topic, doy!

and i didn't attack anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 4:30 PM Lammy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 02-25-2005 5:47 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 38 of 69 (188715)
02-26-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
02-25-2005 6:54 PM


really?
No, evidence leads to confidence and reliability, not absolute, 100% proof.

so if you commit a murder and it is on video tape, and there are witnesses and physical evidence fingerprints, DNA, etc. then we can only be relaiably confident that you did it, but we wouldn't have 100% proof?

yeah right!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 6:54 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 02-26-2005 1:51 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Loudmouth, posted 02-28-2005 11:07 AM Vercingetorix has responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 41 of 69 (189146)
02-28-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Buzsaw
02-26-2005 3:48 PM


hey buzsaw thanks for:
1. thread jacking
2. attacking me
3. adding aboslutely nothing to the debate
4. proving my point about credos
5. making me truly ebarrassed to be a credo with credos like you out there.

i was in a discussion here, im sorry that you have nothing smart to add or say and you have the maturity of a 14 year old, but please refrain from jaking my thread. we where debating here. go back to the kiddy section, ok thanx.

This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 02-28-2005 09:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Buzsaw, posted 02-26-2005 3:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AdminJar, posted 02-28-2005 10:08 AM Vercingetorix has responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 44 of 69 (189417)
03-01-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Loudmouth
02-28-2005 11:07 AM


Re: really?
wow now you are drawing straws.
hey what ever you have to tell yourself to make yourself belive the lie, obviously reason has no part of it.

and good luck arguing that one in court.

This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-01-2005 08:58 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Loudmouth, posted 02-28-2005 11:07 AM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-01-2005 9:28 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 12:53 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 45 of 69 (189424)
03-01-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by AdminJar
02-28-2005 10:08 AM


Re: Not really needed.
ok ok, your right that was not right, but:

i guess that thread jacking is cool on this site, so i could go to everythread with my friend, who showed me this site, and jack every thread. we could just talk about things off topic or about what is going on in other threads or aboust baseball spring training.
neato! :)

is thread jacking against the rules?
becuase if it is then why are you enforcing only some of the rules?

This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-01-2005 09:22 AM

This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-01-2005 09:34 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AdminJar, posted 02-28-2005 10:08 AM AdminJar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AdminJar, posted 03-01-2005 9:32 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 03-01-2005 10:30 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020