Matty, you have no clue what evidence my theory has. That is the funny part, you have been so thoroughly indoctrinated through school and the media to believe that evolution is true that you are confident that creation is false despite having no knowledge of what the creation model teaches.
The irony is thick. Creationists get accused of being narrow minded but it is the evolutionists who have only ever heard one side of the story.
And your self-serving definition of science does you no favours. I note that you have not attempted to answer any of my questions?
To reiterate, if the evidence is overwhelming, why the need to legislate? Why not just let the evidence do the talking?
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Matty, you have no clue what evidence my theory has. That is the funny part, you have been so thoroughly indoctrinated through school and the media to believe that evolution is true that you are confident that creation is false despite having no knowledge of what the creation model teaches.
The irony is thick. Creationists get accused of being narrow minded but it is the evolutionists who have only ever heard one side of the story.
And your self-serving definition of science does you no favours. I note that you have not attempted to answer any of my questions?
To reiterate, if the evidence is overwhelming, why the need to legislate? Why not just let the evidence do the talking?[/quote]
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Very insightful groo.[/quote]Groo is a VERY sharp kid and much better read than I am, but he bailed on me. He is the author of one of what I have crowned my “hallelujah worthy bullseyes”. His declaration of the truistic necessity of pragmatic certainty is hallelujah worthy indeed. This is where he’ll talk derisively about how I was running him in meaningless circles and wasting his time.
I can’t keep up with where this thread is now. I don’t think. This is not really my thing anyway. I prefer the foundation that governs all this. Maybe I’ll try.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Very insightful groo.[/quote]Groo is a VERY sharp kid and much better read than I am, but he bailed on me. He is the author of one of what I have crowned my “hallelujah worthy bullseyes”. His declaration of the truistic necessity of pragmatic certainty is hallelujah worthy indeed. This is where he’ll talk derisively about how I was running him in meaningless circles and wasting his time.
I can’t keep up with where this thread is now. I don’t think. This is not really my thing anyway. I prefer the foundation that governs all this. Maybe I’ll try.
[/quote]
Its not so much a waste of time as a realization that I won’t change my mind on my worldview and you won’t on yours. I do recognize that this is a very dogmatic position, I don’t know that you do also many of your posts tend to be a bit bombastic. Its only the internet afterall its not an emergency if someone disagrees. Also sometimes its nice to have a debate that doesn’t call into question what we know. If we see a child raping murderer for example it would be nice to simply agree that he’s an evil bastard that deserves no pity instead of one side claming well its preordained that he was EVIL with a capital E and another side saying well you can’t have a moral position that is meaningful without God and a third side claiming that morals are purely a human construct. Sometimes its nice to have a debate that doesn’t need to be deconstructed.
I think an external force causing the universe to begin is certainly possible. I don’t agree its necessary but thats neither here nor there. I think evolution doesn’t negate this idea either except for literalist views of the bible which I think also suffer from problems like claiming an eternal god yet being a narrative. I think that creationism shouldn’t be taught as science but in the end only the people that were likely to believe in this anyway from being part of a narrow range of protestant faiths of Christianity already. No one that doesn’t have parents that believe this world view is coming around to this or very few anyway so it doesn’t really matter that its taught in science classes.
Overall I think the belief that the earth was created a few 1000 years ago yet all types of apparent evidence is there to suggest this is not so reminds me a bit of a chilling science experiment some external force is conducting on us where all types of confounding variables are getting thrown in and the results are being watched.
…I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to keep saying this. But as far as science class goes, “creation science” is out of it’s element.[/quote]
Oh, we hear you. And we’re quite amused at how fire and brimstone-ish you appear.
You don’t see it, I’m sure, but you can bet that even your debate comrades do.[/quote]
That’s nice push, but I thought you had finished “schooling” me?
It is quite long but definitely worth the read. It will explain to you why it is not irrational to believe in God & creation.
The author is a genius (literally). Phd in chemistry, published the most popular creation book ever, and a chess grandmaster (he routinely plays 10+ people at the same time while blindfolded. Wins every game too).
…I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to keep saying this. But as far as science class goes, “creation science” is out of it’s element.[/quote]
Oh, we hear you. And we’re quite amused at how fire and brimstone-ish you appear.
You don’t see it, I’m sure, but you can bet that even your debate comrades do.[/quote]
That’s nice push, but I thought you had finished “schooling” me?[/quote]
You’ll probably still get some schooling indirectly but when you squeal incessantly like a schoolgirl I will cut the cord (where we exchange ideas on a one-on-one basis).[/quote]
Did you really have to bring “squeal(ing)” into it? We’re not on a canoe trip in the backwoods of Georgia.
It is quite long but definitely worth the read. It will explain to you why it is not irrational to believe in God & creation.
The author is a genius (literally). Phd in chemistry, published the most popular creation book ever, and a chess grandmaster (he routinely plays 10+ people at the same time while blindfolded. Wins every game too). [/quote]
Its never been irrational to believe it. Its whether or not its probable just like any other theory. Some will obviously find it more probable than others. Your author is also in opposition to any position that isn’t literal genesis as a historical record which is going to lead to more internecine problems than a problem with people that believe in a different view of the genesis of life.
He last published in 1995 in inorganic chem correct? In anything other than creation magazine which I assume is going to have a bit of a bias…the same way I’d assume a journal called Evolution would be a bit biased.
In the end are you really holding that evolution isn’t a process that you can see in something like the Russian fox project? Or simply that the origin of life wasn’t random? Or the much stronger view that genesis is a historic record that should be perhaps be taught in history class?
It is quite long but definitely worth the read. It will explain to you why it is not irrational to believe in God & creation.
The author is a genius (literally). Phd in chemistry, published the most popular creation book ever, and a chess grandmaster (he routinely plays 10+ people at the same time while blindfolded. Wins every game too). [/quote]
Yes, I understand this. In order to believe in the creationist argument, I have to first accept that the bible is true. I don’t accept it as true. If you’re open to accepting religious texts as a basis for creation, you shouldn’t just limit yourself to the bible.
This really sums up the article
Not all presuppositions are equal.
This type of thinking is super divisive, and can be a pathway to fanaticism.
Again, there are many religious texts that have their own stories. Yours don’t have any greater standing than any other religion.
Why do creationists feel the need to create terms in order build a case for themselves?
Then going on to say in a headline
This is just painful to read
Honestly schmichael, you seem relatively bright, so I don’t get why you seem to be having a hard time understanding this.
Thank you for the links, but it hasn’t changed my opinion on the matter.
This is the last time I’m going to explain this. “Creation science” wants to get into the science club. However, “creation science” doesn’t follow the same rules that the science club has, so “creation science’s” application for membership keeps getting denied. If “creation science” were let into the science club, this wouldn’t be fair to all the other members of the science club, because “creation science” gets to play by different rules when it wants to bring knowledge in to the club. Not only that, but if Christian “creation science” were let in to the club, then what about all the other types of “creation science”?
I really hope that you’re able to understand the difference here.
Creationist websites are the definition of biased. If you’re looking there for evidence then there’s your first fault because you need to look at unbiased websites.
Also another thing to note is that Science websites and Atheist websites are not biased because they are not asserting anything without evidence (Atheists actually don’t assert anything about God, they simply don’t believe because their isn’t any evidence to do so) and are always open to changing their opinions based on new information. Religions do not offer any such flexibility, and such is a major flaw in the way they operate.