... After the kind of replies you pulled on me, i would imagine it obvious how hypocritical you are acting right there. You hand-waved my long argument with a "i can't be bothered to reply" and a smiley.
Again, you are being dishonest.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
... After the kind of replies you pulled on me, i would imagine it obvious how hypocritical you are acting right there. You hand-waved my long argument with a "i can't be bothered to reply" and a smiley.
Again, you are being dishonest.
Well, seeing as though I have over 760 posts in this thread, I think I have said plenty already.
To reply to things I have already addressed many times is just rehashing.
Why are evolutionists so threatened by those who argue against it? The intensity is rather revealing.....I think you guys need to get a grip. I can see some tantrums in this thread.
So you know all the readers here personally, do you? How do you know how many people are being convinced about this topic?
This thread isn't about me. Address the information, not the poster. You understand forum rules and staying on topic.
If you want to shoot the messenger, start your own thread.
I just love the evolutionists who tell me that as if there is no conflict between a Creator and evolution?
Naughty children who throw tantrums are sent to their room with no supper.
Sorry but personal insults will be reported. You can say whatever you like about the topic but that is slanderous.
People can take whatever they like from my arguments......what they don't get to do is personally slander another poster.
Is your "opposing argument" that a god on and off for a period of 4 billion years sat down and personally designed and then assembled the DNA of millions upon millions of organisms, with 99.99% of those extinct now? And if not, what exactly is your "opposing argument"?
How do you know that 99.9% of organisms are now extinct? Seriously, who could put a figure on that?
I know...I'll settle this for you.
Letter to God.....
Dear Creator,
Could you please write another Bible and include a creature by creature description of how you created each and every living thing on this planet, and also how you programmed their DNA for survival and self-replication . A detailed account is very important to those who are looking for excuses not to believe in you. I don't personally need this, so could you deliver this information to ArtieE for his expert opinion and conclusion. He understands how much information this will entail so he will pay for the semi-trailer that delivers it.
Your Faithful Servant,
Deeje.
Let us know when it arrives.
It's 2017. Just tell him to publish the information online for all to see. Until then, am I supposed to believe that a god on and off for a period of 4 billion years sat down and personally designed and then assembled the DNA of millions upon millions of organisms? Or what am I supposed to believe?How do you know that 99.9% of organisms are now extinct? Seriously, who could put a figure on that?
I know...I'll settle this for you.
Letter to God.....
Dear Creator,
Could you please write another Bible and include a creature by creature description of how you created each and every living thing on this planet, and also how you programmed their DNA for survival and self-replication . A detailed account is very important to those who are looking for excuses not to believe in you. I don't personally need this, so could you deliver this information to ArtieE for his expert opinion and conclusion. He understands how much information this will entail so he will pay for the semi-trailer that delivers it.
Your Faithful Servant,
Deeje.
Let us know when it arrives.
Alison Wonderland
Member
I already have.
Your OP is stupid.
"I can see colours so there must be some form of divine intervention."
This whole thread is a joke.
Since your entire reply is basically a variation of this or suddenly telling me that i'm off-topic, i think you need to understand a few things.
Firstly, it's only slanderous if it's not true. If you are actually being a hypocrite in a post and i call you out on it, and you refuse to change your hypocritical statement, then it is not slanderous. Same goes for my claims of your dishonesty: If you show it on purpose on the very same post i'm accusing you of being dishonest in, then it is not slanderous. This is just another distraction attempt.
Second: I cannot argue with you properly until you clear your dishonesty. I cannot and will not argue my viewpoint against yours until you stop calling other viewpoints blind opinions AND stop treating your own viewpoints as objective fact. You dismiss ALL other viewpoints WITHOUT EVIDENCE yet you expect others to ONLY use compelling evidence to disprove your subjective assessments. And when they do, you hand-wave it away and pretend that it never happened.
Third: I am making the baseline argument that your ENTIRE argument in this thread is based on the following: You observing internet pictures. But THAT is not compelling evidence of anything except of the following: That whenever you look at internet pictures, they make you think a certain way. It is not evidence of your actual argument when you just show an internet picture and say "See what i see? No? Oh, you're blind." I claim that calling you out on this is HARDLY off-topic and is in fact extremely on-topic. We cannot properly argue with you until you stop treating all your opponents beneath you.
Fourth: I claim you are dishonest and a hypocrite. I've given you citations and reasons as to why i think so. You have called other viewpoints blind and other things. Attacking one's views and values is tantamount to attacking one's person. You don't get to cry to moderators when you think you've been insulted when in fact you have been only called out on your provable actions: Your own posts stand as testament for this.
Fifth: You still have not answered my long reply, yet you expected me to answer to your equally long reply filled with equally many "points". You hand-waved it away with "i can't be bothered to reply to that many points" + a smiley. In your own thread. Shows your convictions, shows your dishonesty, and shows your hypocrisy.
Report me all you want. I won't be that childish, but you have done many things that break the rules of these forums. People just seem to give you the benefit of the doubt because it seems to be a main part of your arguments to insult your opposition.
If that assumption isn't required to explain the observed phenomena, it is perverse to say it is involved, right?
Science is responsible for most of the earth's pollution. For every good thing they produce, there are many more detrimental "side effects" from their productions. Short sighted and financially driven.
Science is responsible for no pollution, and it produces nothing but information. Science is not business, politics, or technology.
No designer evident here......
Yep, all just accidents of nature.
One wonders what forces were at work to produce such variety of design and color coordination?
Its like an art gallery, but evolutionists say there is no artist.
You've already made that argument. How many more times will you post pictures and say the equivalent of, "I just can't see evolution doing that"?
We've got it. You can't see it.
Is this thread about the topic of evolution verses creation or is it about someone's wounded ego because they didn't get the reply they demanded? You take a post apart sentence by sentence and expect me to spend hours addressing every point? Your whole response is about self justification. All the arguments have been made. You've got nothing new.
I am not interested in pursuing pedantic arguments to satisfy someone's need to be right.
If my posts are not "scientific" enough for you....sorry, but my "evidence" is as valid as yours. Who says science is always right?
I keep getting told that there are no "facts" in science.....well, there are no "facts" in my belief system either. Your belief system has as much "proof" as mine. I hope that I have demonstrated that for the benefit of the undecided.
I am not here to force anyone to believe anything, but obviously the material I have posted has struck a chord with those who are feeling threatened by my "evidence". It's hard to deny the Creator when confronted with actual creation rather than diagrams and illustration out of someone's imagination.
You are welcome to your belief.
Have a nice day.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
Please define 'perverse'.
If that assumption is not observable, i will not say that it is involved, neither will i say it is not involved. I will say i don't know whether it is involved or not.
Of course not.....atom bombs just evolved and accidentally blew up two Japanese cities, wiping out successive generations from radiation poisoning.....agent orange just fell out of the sky like napalm and killed innocent people caught up in a dirty war.
Chemical pollution could not have occurred if some scientists had not concocted them. Plastic would not be choking our marine creatures to death if science had not figured out a way to make it.
Science made the bullets for others to fire. Without the bullets, could there have been so much death and destruction? Does science have no forethought as to where human greed may take their productions?
Air pollution, water pollution and chemical pollution of the soil are all laid directly at the feet of those who made it possible. Even now the tons of drugs that people take for their ailments (largely caused by all the pollution) are getting spewed into the oceans and are deforming the fish....not to mention the radio-active material spilled from the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster.
No...science is not to blame for any of that...is it?
Correct. Science in not to blame for any of that.
LOL......even scientists are saying that a lot of what it believes is far fetched.....but only to the uneducated. (Think Emperor's new clothes)
If science did not explain away the absurdity with its diagrams and illustrations, no one could believe a word of it.
You keep forgetting about the power of suggestion. That is the foundation of evolution. It is the foundation of everything in this world where everything is fake. Convincing someone of something is easy if you sell it correctly. The commercial world operates on that premise. We end up buying things we don't need....even things that are bad for us.
The theory is useful. It has an explanatory mechanism that is self-evidently correct (the combination of biological variation and natural selection make evolution inevitable), makes predictions that have been verified, is falsifiable but has never been falsified, and has been successfully applied in diverse areas of biology.
We require nothing more from a scientific theory.
When you can offer a competing idea that can do any of that, then we can talk. In the meantime, why would we throw out a successful theory for a hypothesis that can do none of that? Because you just can't see it?
But science cannot seem to make a distinction between what is verifiable and what is not. "I think" this "might have" happened does not equate to this "must have" happened.
I realize that "you" require nothing more......but I require way more if you are going to replace an all wise, all powerful, all knowing Creator with an unprovable theory. How does a theist do that? I can understand how atheists do it but, any Bible believer can only compromise what it says by using God and evolution in the same breath.
When you can offer solid evidence instead of unsubstantiated and unprovable suggestion, then we might get somewhere. Your "theory" is only "successful" to those who believe it.....so how do you take the high ground on this? Science might be your religion, but it isn't mine.
How do you know that scientists aren't as misled as you believe we are? God is not the only unseen entity with power, according to the Bible. There is an evil force at work in this world that is now plain for all to see. Deny it if you wish. Even unbelievers are starting to question.
First of all, proof only makes sense for mathematics or alcohol. Don't expect absolute proof in the real world. You won't get it. (We can't *know* that all we see isn't an illusion).
So what replaces 'proof'? The answer is agreement with a testable theory that can be used to predict the results of observations. So, we can never prove that gravity always works. It is *logically possible* it will fail tomorrow. But, our theory of gravity allows us to make detailed predictions of what will happen and such predictions have consistently given the correct answers up to now. That is less than 'proof', but it inspires a great deal of confidence in our theory of gravity.
Similarly, every area of science takes observations, makes guesses as to why those particular observations came out the way they did and formulates hypotheses to explain the results. What makes an area a science is that there are then active attempts to show the hypothesis to be *wrong*. We consider the results of that hypothesis and try to determine the cases that are most likely to show when it is wrong. And then we *test* those cases to see what happens. If the hypothesis fails, we go back to the drawing board and attempt to formulate a new hypothesis. If, however, the hypothesis works in even the most extreme cases, we develop confidence in it. It isn't *proven*, but it is as good as we can get in the real world.
And no, our theory *isn't* only successful for those that believe in it. In fact, science encourages tests of when an idea can fail. We encourage those who do not believe in an idea to formulate objective tests to see what will happen. Now, those tests must be 'real' tests of the hypothesis, and not simply tests of some misunderstanding of that hypothesis. So, the theory of gravity does NOT predict that all things will fall to Earth. To point to a space probe that was launched and will never return as a test of gravity with the idea that gravity says all things will fall back to Earth would be a false test of the hypothesis.
Now, what this means is that the ways to argue against a scientific theory are fairly simple: 1) find an observable situation where the theory clearly predicts one thing and something else clearly happens. OR 2) Claim it makes no testable predictions at all, thereby showing it isn't a scientific theory.
So, that you don't like a theory isn't enough to discard it. That it disagrees with your religion isn't enough. that it was put forth by people you distrust isn't enough. The *only* way to argue against a theory is to either show it doesn't agree with observations or that it doesn't make any observable predictions at all. The *whole* justification of a scientific theory is whether it actually agrees with observations even in situations where it might be surprising for it to do so.
Which is exactly the position that believers in ID take. We have our own theory which we test with our own senses and find them to be compelling. We don't need science degrees to "interpret" what we see. What is designed has a designer. Why is that illogical when that is the real life experience of just about all of us? Everything I use that has a purpose was designed for that purpose by an intelligent mind...when is that not true?....only in evolutionary science.
Again, it doesn't take a science degree to see that gravity exists. It is testable without a science lab or scientists explaining it. If you defy this law, the result can be painful. Its not a hard lesson to understand.
But what if the testing process is based on a wrong premise and interpretation of the results are applied in a biased manner to support that premise? What if pride makes it difficult to show findings in a different light? We have seen what happens to men of science who disagree publicly with the accepted tenets of 'established' science. They are ostracized and made to appear to be deluded. Their professional reputations can be shredded and their character sullied. Most would just sit down and shut up.
I see all this testing within parameters of what is already accepted as a given.....no one dares to go outside of those parameters for the reasons just mentioned. Academia is ego driven and when large sums of money or prestigious accolades and appointments are at stake, humans do what humans do. They will sell their soul for the accolades or the financial rewards.
People invest a lot of trust in what science can accomplish, but it isn't always deserved.
If a first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed.
But again we are talking about that first premise, not the details that are built on it. You cannot test macro-evolution like you can test bacteria under a microscope. There is no 'documentation' that acts as a reference except the fossil record and it is sadly lacking any real proof for what science suggests "might have" or "could have" taken place all those millions of years ago.
My beef is not so much that men of science have formulated their theory, but in the way that theory is promoted.
If it is NOT an established FACT, then it should be taught as an unproven theory. To 'brainwash' school children into believing that it is unquestionable, IMO is immoral and deceptive. To penalize students in a science exam for not answering a question on evolution "correctly" because they don't believe it, is also a loss of fundamental freedom of thought and expression. The education system has simply replaced one belief system with another that they have accepted as somehow more convincing. Why is it more convincing? Because of the aggressive way it is 'marketed'...not because it has proven to be true.
That is true, but there should at least be something provided as proof that is more scientific than "might have" or "could have" in their explanation to school children.
And I guess that the key word there is "justification". Humans are very good at justification. They also know about the power of suggestion....they could use it to sell ice to Eskimos. At the end of the day, all evolutionary science has is the power of suggestion and a good sales pitch with great graphics.....because it certainly isn't based on the evidence.
- Status