• 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!

Sources vs Science

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again I can tell you that I dont need to run away you see? Its just a keyboard so I can stop typing or close the laptop. Thats it.

What is your reasonable request? Define it clearly and specifically. Making general statements are not reasonable requests.

Please go ahead.
Then why run away? I gave you reasonable challenges so that I could help you. Why did you run away from those challenges? One cannot debate about the sciences if one does not understand the basics of the sciences. Why do you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So this is your requirement right? Your definition of an honest, informed creationist is "A creationist that both understands the sciences that he opposes and does not lie. It should be obvious."

So I have asked you about two times at least. Do you consider Newton did not understand sciences and is a liar? He was a creationist, and a very well known theologian.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Right. So in your "observation", creationists all by default "dishonest and uninformed". Lol. Thats bigotry mate. You are defining bigotry. There is no point telling someone with that level of bigotry towards billions of people in this world, most of the human species, this cannot be explained.
Once again you were given an easy task. Find a creationist that is both honest and informed. You could not or would not do so. That in effect confirms my claim.


And no. It is not bigotry. Let's say that there are a group of people that insist that 2 + 2 = 5. Claiming that they are either uneducated or liars is not "bigotry". The difference between creationism and a belief in a Flat Earth is just a matter of degree. You would probably agree that there is no such thing as a Flat Earther that is honest and informed. For the same reason there is no informed and honest creationist. Both a Flat Earth belief and creationism are demonstrably wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So this is your requirement right? Your definition of an honest, informed creationist is "A creationist that both understands the sciences that he opposes and does not lie. It should be obvious."

So I have asked you about two times at least. Do you consider Newton did not understand sciences and is a liar? He was a creationist, and a very well known theologian.
Dude! Seriously? Do you think that Newton understood evolution? Newton was honest but he was over a hundred years before Darwin. He did not understand evolution so his opposition, and you do not know if he would oppose evolution, would fit in the "uninformed" category.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Once again you were given an easy task. Find a creationist that is both honest and informed. You could not or would not do so. That in effect confirms my claim.


And no. It is not bigotry. Let's say that there are a group of people that insist that 2 + 2 = 5. Claiming that they are either uneducated or liars is not "bigotry". The difference between creationism and a belief in a Flat Earth is just a matter of degree. You would probably agree that there is no such thing as a Flat Earther that is honest and informed. For the same reason there is no informed and honest creationist. Both a Flat Earth belief and creationism are demonstrably wrong.

Thinking and stating any group of people as a whole are uninformed and are liars is bigotry.

Do you consider Newton did not understand sciences and is a liar? He was a creationist, and a very well known theologian.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again, there is no need to run away. All I need to do is stop typing. This is not a street fight mate. ;)



Yeah I know you believe most of the human species are duds and dont understand basics of science because they are creationists. Very good.
I know, if this was a street fight you would be lying in the gutter. You have lost at every level and you do not realize it. I have been offering to help you to understand and yet you run away and confirm my claims.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Thinking and stating any group of people as a whole are uninformed and are liars is bigotry.

Do you consider Newton did not understand sciences and is a liar? He was a creationist, and a very well known theologian.
No, it is not. You really need to look up "bigotry".
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Dude! Seriously? Do you think that Newton understood evolution? Newton was honest but he was over a hundred years before Darwin. He did not understand evolution so his opposition, and you do not know if he would oppose evolution, would fit in the "uninformed" category.

Ah so you are specifically talking about evolution? Great. So this is the first time you were specific.

Please go and find a guy called "Adnan Ibrahim" and his view on evolution.

Also you should know that the theory of evolution was called the Muhammedan theory prior to Darwin. And in the 14th century some men like Ibn Khaldun wrote about evolution.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I know, if this was a street fight you would be lying in the gutter. You have lost at every level and you do not realize it. I have been offering to help you to understand and yet you run away and confirm my claims.

Very good. Good for you. Amazing quality and character.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ah so you are specifically talking about evolution? Great. So this is the first time you were specific.

Please go and find a guy called "Adnan Ibrahim" and his view on evolution.

Also you should know that the theory of evolution was called the Muhammedan theory prior to Darwin. And in the 14th century some men like Ibn Khaldun wrote about evolution.

Creationism is an opposition to evolution. And no, if you want to site someone you need to quote and link. I am not doing your homework for you.

As to the "Muhammedan theory" Citation Needed. Muslims may have had similar ideas but so did many others. They did not develop it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Very good. Good for you. Amazing quality and character.
Thank you. I am trying to help. I am not here to laugh or tease the ignorant. Ignorance can be cured with education. Unfortunately dishonesty cannot. That is why there are a very very small handful of scientists that try to support creationism.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No, it is not. You really need to look up "bigotry".
Thank you. I am trying to help. I am not here to laugh or tease the ignorant. Ignorance can be cured with education. Unfortunately dishonesty cannot. That is why there are a very very small handful of scientists that try to support creationism.

You are ignorant mate. Absolutely. So how could one cure that?

This is bigotry. I would never in my life ever claim things you are claiming. Absolutely prejudiced. You have alienated most of the human species on earth as uninformed, dishonest, and ignorant of basic science. you are absolutely wrong, uninformed, and ignorant.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Creationism is an opposition to evolution. And no, if you want to site someone you need to quote and link. I am not doing your homework for you.

As to the "Muhammedan theory" Citation Needed. Muslims may have had similar ideas but so did many others. They did not develop it.

Who said "Muslims developed it"? Thats a straw man argument.

This shows you are ignorant but you call others ignorant.

Anyway, since you said "citation needed" let me quench it.

Read John William Drapers book called History of the conflict of religion and science page 188.

Screenshot 2020-10-30 at 9.12.51 PM.png
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You are ignorant mate. Absolutely. So how could one cure that?

This is bigotry. I would never in my life ever claim things you are claiming. Absolutely prejudiced. You have alienated most of the human species on earth as uninformed, dishonest, and ignorant of basic science. you are absolutely wrong, uninformed, and ignorant.
We are all ignorant about some things. Pointing out someone's ignorance is not bigotry. You failed again.

And the vast majority of people are ignorant about the basics of science. That is not a problem. The problem is when they try to argue against the sciences that they have no understanding of at all. One can have a religious belief, but that does not mean that it needs to be respected. If my religion says that it is fine to torture chickens publicly that belief does not need to be respected. There are times when the best thing one can do is to either keep quiet or learn about what one does not like.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
We are all ignorant about some things. Pointing out someone's ignorance is not bigotry. You failed again.

Nah. You did not understand. Maybe you didnt read properly. SO here you go again.

"You have alienated most of the human species on earth as uninformed, dishonest, and ignorant of basic science." That is bigotry.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Creationism is an opposition to evolution. And no, if you want to site someone you need to quote and link. I am not doing your homework for you.

You have not done any homework. What link? You mean some link to a website like you had given earlier? No way. Thats not analysis, that's not research.

Some googling won't do any harm. If you cant, then that's your prerogative. There are no internet links to books mate.

But I think if you wish to read, Ibn Khaldun book form the 14th century I think should be available for free on the internet. So make some effort to learn something.

I also gave another name of a book. If you want you could purchase it. I am not sure if its there anywhere for free. But maybe google books might have to read.

If you dont wish to put any effort, its your prerogative.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Who said "Muslims developed it"? Thats a straw man argument.

This shows you are ignorant but you call others ignorant.

Anyway, since you said "citation needed" let me quench it.

Read John William Drapers book called History of the conflict of religion and science page 188.

View attachment 44535
Interesting. Of course the "Mohammadan Theory" was not a theory in the modern sense. Like I said other groups has similar speculations. What made Darwin's theory a theory is that it was testable. It offered an explanation of how evolution occurred. A modern scientific theory has to have a mechanism (in Darwin's case it was the combination of variation and natural selection) and it needs to be testable. Usually by the predictions that the concept can make.

There were quite a few "evolutionists" before Darwin. Here is just one article about that, none of them qualified as scientific theories:

Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And your article was rather interesting. In the past Muslims led the world in the sciences for a while. That was when their religion was not overly oppressive. Drapers' purpose in citing that "theory" was an indictment of overly literal Christian religions.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nah. You did not understand. Maybe you didnt read properly. SO here you go again.

"You have alienated most of the human species on earth as uninformed, dishonest, and ignorant of basic science." That is bigotry.
I read. I understood. You are wrong.

And I doubt if I have alienated most of the human species. Most people are honest enough to admit when they do not understand something. Why would pointing out their ignorance be bigotry? I do not understand a good portion of the engineering needed for flight. Not just aerodynamics, but all of the mechanical engineering etc. needed to build a flying aircraft. I would not be insulted if someone pointed that out, but then I would not be so foolish as to argue that "flight is impossible". The number of people that I would offend would be very small.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Interesting. Of course the "Mohammadan Theory" was not a theory in the modern sense. Like I said other groups has similar speculations. What made Darwin's theory a theory is that it was testable. It offered an explanation of how evolution occurred. A modern scientific theory has to have a mechanism (in Darwin's case it was the combination of variation and natural selection) and it needs to be testable. Usually by the predictions that the concept can make.

There were quite a few "evolutionists" before Darwin. Here is just one article about that, none of them qualified as scientific theories:

Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And your article was rather interesting. In the past Muslims led the world in the sciences for a while. That was when their religion was not overly oppressive. Drapers' purpose in citing that "theory" was an indictment of overly literal Christian religions.

Very good. But you accept that "creationists had spoken of evolution" so they are all not duds. You must accept that you didnt know about this at all and you have not done your research.

So of course now you will question the motives ignoring the fact that you had no clue of.

Also you have now moved the goal post form absolute ignorance and dishonesty of creationists as a whole to evolution, and again you turned it into "modern scientific theory".

Strange.
 
Top