|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 15, 2004 0:28:45 GMT -5
SonWorshiper - "You know, I finally actually looked at some of the links offered by TD"
You mean you hadn't until now? I'm shocked. Really.
"That's it? That's your vaunted evidence?"
Actually, it's just the tip of the iceberg. Now, would you care to name a specific piece of evidence posted that you feel does not support evolutionary theory, with your reasoning for why it does not support the theory, or are you just venting because you have no evidence of your own.
"Boy do I feel like a fool."
You're a young Earth creationist. It comes with the territory.
"I've always hesitated to look at TD's links because there was a tiny part of me that feared that there was something in them that might come across as convincing."
Refusing to look at the heart of your opponent's argument on the grounds that he might be correct hardly speaks of a willingness to honestly discuss the topic.
"The evolutionists' dissertations are filled with 'the evidence suggests,' 'are thought to have had,' 'scientists claim,' 'may have beens,' 'it is widely thought,' 'studies indicate,'"
Have you ever read a scientific publication, or even a scientific textbook? This is the language that scientists use; absolutes are generally avoided because every scientist knows that their conclusions can, and very likely will to some degree, be modified by future evidence. The use of the terms you listed implies no measure of doubt by their user, but merely conveys that the present evidence indicates that the author's conclusion is correct. If your sole issue is with the language of the authors instead of the evidence itself, then the validity of that evidence remains unchallenged.
"And then 'the facts' that they purport are not in any way substantiated,"
Oh really, would you care to give even a single such example from the links provided?
"but are accepted as fact and not questioned because these 'experts' have simply claimed their truthfulness."
You have got to be kidding. Read a scientific publication and you will see that scientists question each other's conclusions all the time. The best way for a scientist to make a name for himself is to overturn an existing model with his own; to claim that any conclusion is simply accepted as fact without being subjected to intense scrutiny demonstrates a gross ignorance of the scientific process as a whole.
"Oh boy, the deception of Darwinism and the flemsiness of their argument is sillier than I could have ever imagined."
Again, instead of the general claims of " deception" and "flemsiness," try presenting a specific criticism of the evidence.
"I've come to realize that just because someone offers an answer doesn't mean they have successfully refuted a creationist's claim"
Of course it doesn't, provided that you can show why that explanation doesn't really work. By all means, I invite you to have at any of my dissections of the young Earth creationists' arguments. If you feel that I have not accurately represented the facts in my statements, prove it.
"Slick words, sarcastic retorts and 'impressive' links filled with a bunch of theories based on probabilities, possibilities, suppositons, coulda's, woulda's, and shoulda's will never change the truth of God's Word."
If you feel that I am attempting to change the truth of God's Word, then you haven't been paying attention at all. I am not trying to change any of the truth of the Bible, only to show that the young Earth creationist interpretation of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 doesn't hold water. Again, it all comes down to the evidence, and the young Earth creationists simply don't have any.
--DX TD Everything in the universe vibrates, and therefore sings.
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 15, 2004 12:08:45 GMT -5
Quote by TD:
"...absolutes are generally avoided because every scientist knows that their conclusions can, and very likely will to some degree, be modified by future evidence."
My Response:
That's called game, set and match, my friends. The bloody beatings of Darwinism can now stop. This statement, from TD himself, has given it a mortal blow, and finally put it out of its misery. I don't even have to provide a response to the rest of the silliness in his post.
You see, a bunch of coulda's, woulda's, shoulda's, probablies, most likely to have happeneds, is widely thought, etc., just don't hold water to "And God said..." or "In the beginning God created..." For sincere truth seekers, these suppositions and probabilities concluded by the "experts" just don't carry a whole lot of weight.
So it's not really the evidence that I have an issue with. It's the fact that the evidence can only provide answers in terms of probabilities, possibilities, suppositions, coulda's, woulda's and shoulda's, etc. And it is these probabilities, possibilities and suppositions claimed by the experts that I don't give a lot of creedence to, especially when they are in disagreement with things that I know are true such as the The Bible's claim that God created everything with the power of His Word by speaking the universe into existence.
Truth is never modified. Science is. The fact that science is modified is proof that science cannot be considered absolute truth. And if it's not absolute truth, why hold on to it so adamantly?
You see, science is not truth. Science is only the observed "truths" of the so-called experts. And as TD has admitted, it can and is modified. If it were truth, absolute truth (and that's what we're looking for), it could not be modified. I mean, why modify truth?
Let me give you some examples of truth...truth that cannot be modified by future findings:
"In the beginning God created..." (Genesis 1:1) "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3) "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth..." (Genesis 1:21) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him..." (Genesis 1:26) "And The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
Christianity is founded and defined by absolute truths. That's why we view science as fickle and unreliable...because by it's own admission, it can and is modified.
Darwinism is founded on Man's observations of the existing evidence. Because it is inspired by Man, it is susceptible to mistakes, wrong conclusions, being proven wrong by future evidential findings, and flat out deception by the scientists themselves (as have occured many times, and probably [ooh, now I get to use a "probably"] will occur many more times as ambitious scientists, who knowing no moral code, seek to make a name for themselves).
This hardly constitutes truth.
Wise men and women put their faith in the truths of God's Word and don't change their interpretations based on man's observations of evidence.
I wanted to be counted among the wise, and therefore, along with the majority of those here (as evidenced by TD's poll), will continue to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Jan 15, 2004 14:48:29 GMT -5
SW,
If your young creationsist theories were truly backed by the big bad God, then one would think they could at least muster up some shred, some kind of credible scientific evidence to present a decent argument.
You problem is the same as it always was...
Running around posturing doesn't stand up to the facts.
|
|
|
Post by WatingforHim on Jan 15, 2004 15:09:52 GMT -5
TD, thank you for your rude, sarcasim. I really appreciated it. You are to date the most obnoxious person i have met, and being my age I have met a good many. Congratulations.
I will withdraw myself from any conversations here at this site.
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 15, 2004 16:11:59 GMT -5
Kee...how are you these days?
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 15, 2004 16:14:45 GMT -5
How are ya these days,Kee?
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 15, 2004 16:33:57 GMT -5
Kee, Since you askeds questions of Sonworshipper,I will ask some of you.If I remember right you and Heathen(correct me if I am wrong,please) refer to God as the ALL That IS.And I am assuming you believe that the ALL That IS created the world..but just not in the way the Bible said He did.If God is the ALL That Is as you believe,may I ask WHY that you say that Genesis couldn't be true? Is it because if it were true,then everything else the Bible says would have to be true too.(God's word says He is TRUTH).But then you CAN'T believe the Bible is the word of God,can you? If you did,then you would have to believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to God.And if you believed that then you couldn't believe you are God or that we are all God.Hmm..now I see.And BTW..you really don't have to answer my questions 'cause they're already answered,aren't they? And sorry for the double posts!
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 15, 2004 16:44:16 GMT -5
Do you TRULY believe God is the ALL That Is like you say you do?
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 15, 2004 17:42:15 GMT -5
SonWorshiper - Wow, I never expected you to be back to this thread after so convincingly removing yourself from it earlier. Quote by TD:"...absolutes are generally avoided because every scientist knows that their conclusions can, and very likely will to some degree, be modified by future evidence." My Response:That's called game, set and match, my friends. The bloody beatings of Darwinism can now stop. This statement, from TD himself, has given it a mortal blow, and finally put it out of its misery. How do you figure? Again, you're only demonstrating your ignorance of science by whining about the language used in scientific publications. "You see, a bunch of coulda's, woulda's, shoulda's, probablies, most likely to have happeneds, is widely thought, etc., just don't hold water to 'And God said...' or 'In the beginning God created...'"Nobody has contradicted the truth of "And God said" or "In the beginning God created," it is only your interpretation of those pkmtyolpages that has been contradicted. At the same time, you have wholly failed to provide the smallest scrap of evidence demonstrating that your interpretation is the correct one. "For sincere truth seekers, these suppositions and probabilities concluded by the 'experts' just don't carry a whole lot of weight."Provided that one ignore the fact that the conclusions they have reached are wholly supported by the evidence, with none to contradict it. "So it's not really the evidence that I have an issue with."That's surprising, since it is that very evidence which renders a literal interpretation of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 wholly false. "Truth is never modified. Science is."And it is through this constant modification that science is able to arrive ever closer to the truth. The evidence has shown for over a century that evolution is the truth of God's creation of the biodiversity we observe today. "The fact that science is modified is proof that science cannot be considered absolute truth."I don't believe anyone on this thread has claimed that it was. "if it's not absolute truth, why hold on to it so adamantly?"Because while it is not absolute truth, science has shown itself to be so true that we are able to take it for granted every day in every aspect of our lives. Let me give you some examples of truth...truth that cannot be modified by future findings: "In the beginning God created..." (Genesis 1:1) "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3) "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth..." (Genesis 1:21) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him..." (Genesis 1:26) "And The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7) "That's why we view science as fickle and unreliable"Ah, the priceless hypocrisy of the young Earth creationist, claiming "science as fickle and unreliable" at the same time that he transmits a message over the Internet for the 264th time to this board, while sitting in a climate-controlled house, with scientifically modified food sitting in his stomach. If science were as "fickle and unreliable" as you claim, you simply could not use it in your daily life with the frequency that you do without ever once questioning whether it would work. "Because it [evolutionary theory] is inspired by Man, it is susceptible to mistakes, wrong conclusions, being proven wrong by future evidential findings, and flat out deception by the scientists themselves"Of course it is; however, the fact remains that no such examples within the current model have been presented. "I wanted to be counted among the wise, and therefore, along with the majority of those here (as evidenced by TD's poll), will continue to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11."It's amazing how "the wise" continue to view themselves as such, when they have not produced a shred of evidence to support the purported wisdom of their claims. WaitingforHim - "TD, thank you for your rude, sarcasim."Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to practice, and for failing to present any evidence for your claims. "I really appreciated it."It was my pleasure. "You are to date the most obnoxious person i have met, and being my age I have met a good many. Congratulations."What do I win? "I will withdraw myself from any conversations here at this site."And so the Traffic Demon vanquished another young Earth creationist, sending her screaming into the hills, her claims refuted not only by science, but even by her fellow young Earth creationists. Huzzah! hounddawg - "may I ask WHY that you say that Genesis couldn't be true?"It certainly can be true, just not literally true, as demonstrated by the evidence. "Is it because if it were true,then everything else the Bible says would have to be true too."You're not too good at this whole logic thing, are you? --Y2Traf
|
|
Beth
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Beth on Jan 15, 2004 18:35:53 GMT -5
Yeah Im new here. But this just has got to be said.
Traffic Demon, what do you care what other people believe? If Christians want to agree with what the Bible has to say, let it go. Believe what you want and let everyone else alone.
Oh big bad you run off a little old lady aren't you special? To me, personally you look like real jerk.
Who are you the thought police?
So long as this spinning mud ball keeps going I don't care how it came to exist. I just thank God that it did.
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 15, 2004 18:41:30 GMT -5
The account of Genesis can be true but there's ABSOLUTELY no way for it to be as the Bible says,huh? I will borrow a line from Kee's buddy and I believe it goes "As you believe".!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 15, 2004 18:54:22 GMT -5
Beth - Traffic Demon, what do you care what other people believe?
I care because, despite the fact that that belief is not supported by any evidence known to exist, many of those who hold that belief continue to assert it as true. This not only affects me as a teacher of science, but as a Christian as well, who has been condemned more times than I can count by those who should have rejoiced in my salvation for refusing to support a literal interpretation of the fantastic events of Genesis.
"If Christians want to agree with what the Bible has to say, let it go."
I have no problem with Christians agreeing with what the Bible says. As a Christian myself, I agree with what the Bible says on all counts. The problem is that there are those who assert as truth an interpretation of the Creation parable that runs wholly contrary to the physical evidence. Not only does this utterly destroy their own credibility when witnessing to others, but casts a negative light on the credibility of their fellow Christians.
"Believe what you want and let everyone else alone."
That's a fun little double standard, because in believing what I do, I have not been left alone. I've been ostracized by cpkmtyollmates, verbally attacked by parents of my students, and even condemned by complete strangers, all of whom support young Earth creationism without any reasonable basis for doing so. The bottom line is that young Earth creationism is a complete falsehood, and as Christians with an obligation to the truth, we should shun it for what it is.
hounddawg - "The account of Genesis can be true but there's ABSOLUTELY no way for it to be as the Bible says,huh?"
That's right; the physical evidence renders reduces the possibility of a literal interpretation of Genesis remaining true to zero. It's possible that the greatest evidence there is that a literal interpretation of the fantastic events depicted in Genesis cannot be true is that not one of the ten people who stated that they interpret those events literally has managed to present even a single piece of evidence in support of that interpretation. Again, it all comes down to the evidence, and the young Earth creationists have none.
--El Traf
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 15, 2004 19:20:37 GMT -5
TD, May I ask why,in your own opinion,did God give the Genesis creation account as a parable?
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 15, 2004 19:57:35 GMT -5
Kee, Since you askeds questions of Sonworshipper,I will ask some of you.If I remember right you and Heathen(correct me if I am wrong,please) refer to God as the ALL That IS.And I am assuming you believe that the ALL That IS created the world..but just not in the way the Bible said He did.If God is the ALL That Is as you believe,may I ask WHY that you say that Genesis couldn't be true? Is it because if it were true,then everything else the Bible says would have to be true too.(God's word says He is TRUTH).But then you CAN'T believe the Bible is the word of God,can you? If you did,then you would have to believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to God.And if you believed that then you couldn't believe you are God or that we are all God.Hmm..now I see.And BTW..you really don't have to answer my questions 'cause they're already answered,aren't they? And sorry for the double posts! God is the All That Is. God is also not untruthful. Why would a book that was written so long ago need to be held as the absolute authority, when the very existence that it describes disagrees with it? I don't understand the value of refusing to question ANYTHING just because it says that it is to be unquestioned. Does it make sense to you that all evidence points to the biblical account of creation as being not a literal account? Why would God do that? And please spare me the "Satan is deceiving us" routine. There is no Satan either, but that is a different topic altogether. The Genesis story is cute. Puts God in the command seat, lays out some lessons in a nice way that is simple for people to understand. That's all. Read it, understand it, learn from it, move on. Just don't take it literally.
|
|
Beth
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Beth on Jan 15, 2004 20:53:38 GMT -5
I care because, despite the fact that that belief is not supported by any evidence known to exist, many of those who hold that belief continue to assert it as true. This not only affects me as a teacher of science, but as a Christian as well, who has been condemned more times than I can count by those who should have rejoiced in my salvation for refusing to support a literal interpretation of the fantastic events of Genesis.
You know what? I think I am going to treat you like you have treated other people. ;D How does it affect you? What does it do to you? How do you know what happened when? Where you there? Did you hear God say "let there be evolution"?
You call the events of the bible fantastic. I call evolution immanginative junk, but thats just me. How can anyone tell anything about a BONE for crying out loud.
I have no problem with Christians agreeing with what the Bible says. As a Christian myself, I agree with what the Bible says on all counts. The problem is that there are those who assert as truth an interpretation of the Creation parable that runs wholly contrary to the physical evidence. Not only does this utterly destroy their own credibility when witnessing to others, but casts a negative light on the credibility of their fellow Christians.
No you don't agree with the Bible. Last time I looked the Bible was an all or nothing deal. You can't just pick what parts to believe and what parts to disregard.
That's a fun little double standard, because in believing what I do, I have not been left alone. I've been ostracized by cpkmtyollmates, verbally attacked by parents of my students, and even condemned by complete strangers, all of whom support young Earth creationism without any reasonable basis for doing so. The bottom line is that young Earth creationism is a complete falsehood, and as Christians with an obligation to the truth, we should shun it for what it is.
Got an issue? Heres a tissue. I don't care what you believe. Like I said, I don't care how it came to be, just that it did. How can anyone know for a fact what happened 1,000 years ago, let alone what happened when the earth was made.
Let scientists speculate till you know where freezes over and they might get 1 tenth of it right.
|
|