Bridge we do frequently discuss theology in the Coffee House section; I wish you'd stick around and consider opening a thread where you advance your best case for the existence of God. Or maybe just participate in a few of the threads, there.
I wouldn't say that most of the evolutionists here are atheists, it's probably more 50/50 and Percy, who runs the site, is fairly open about not being an atheist. I think you're wrong that evolution necessitates atheism or that you can't "genuinely agree" with evolutionists and believe in God. But I do think that evolutionary history basically contradicts every popular notion of God as an omnipotent and benevolent being.
Again these are more "Coffee House" topics. I hope you'll see fit to participate.
Do you think you can cite more of me than I might cite of yours, which we find problematic, factoring in our diverse views and ideologies regarding evidences and origins regarding observed phenomena etc?
But PaulK's examples aren't examples of things that are wrong from PaulK's ideological view, they're examples of things that are wrong from your own ideological view:
quote:1) Citing a website devoted to penny stocks as an authority on hurricane frequency without doing adequate checks on the claims it made Message 256 In fact it turned out to rely on assuming that a list of selected major hurricanes was a complete list of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. Wrong! (It wasn't even restricted to hurricanes making landfall in the U.S.!)
2) Setting aside data from an authoritative source (NOAA) that contradicted the penny stock website by indicating that there were hurricanes not on the list used by webpennys Message 286 and again Message 17 and again Message 43 3) Falsely claiming that the NOAA list used as a basis for the webpennys article was "the only NOAA frequency trend chart available " when - as had already been shown - it was only an incomplete list of major hurricanes around the U.S. Message 44 Whether the stupidity is in ignoring the existence of the obviously better information that had already been offered, or in thinking that nobody would notice such an obvious falsehood is left to the readers...
Buz, this isn't stuff that's a matter of opinion whether you "believe" that the NOAA list is the only frequency trend chart available. It has nothing to do with whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, a goldbug or a Keynsian economist, and so on. These are unambiguous errors of fact irrespective of the ideological commitments of your audience.
The truth is, we'd rather see you advance your case for creationism without these errors, because we're most interested in you presenting the best possible case for your ideology. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but most of us are here to be challenged. How does it challenge us when you're unable to do your own homework?
I wish you had responded instead of just downvoting my previous post, because I thought it was pretty sympathetic to your position and I'm wondering why it didn't seem to make any impression on you.
Imo, some posts of Panda, Paul and you, et al are stupid for failing to recognize that ideology does factor in as to one's perspective of stupidity.
Well, obviously, but we know the difference. Don't you? If I made a post where I claimed that the capital of Kentucky was pronounced Louis-ville instead of Louee-ville, surely you wouldn't say to yourself that you only thought that was a stupid post because Crashfrog is an evolutionist and you're not, and that's just what they think. No, you'd say to yourself that it was a stupid post because the capital of Kentucky is Frankfort, and that's true regardless of what ideology one holds about the history and diversity of life on Earth.
Believe it or not, Buz, we understand that you're here to try to convince us that evolution is wrong. Not just wrong but bone-headed. And that's great; we want you around to try to do that. But you have to present your best possible case. And the errors you keep making aren't just our interpretation of "error" forced on your ideology. They're things that are mistakes even from your ideology, elementary errors of fact, and they don't serve your case at all. That's why even your fellow creationists don't seem to recognize you as one of their own. Ideology has nothing to do with this case - it's just a function of how you aren't being careful enough.