Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the books that were supposedly inspired by the big "G" himself seem to state otherwise.
-
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!
The Big Bang and Evolution
- Thread starter Ubon
- Start date
Unfortunately the books that were supposedly inspired by the big "G" himself seem to state otherwise.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Liar. If you had actually read them? You would not be so .... trollish
So not one site on the Internet has evidence that you can see? Who do you think that reflects on, the 20,000+ sets of writers generating their content, or the creationist reading them?
Challenge? That's not a challenge, and it has been met repeatedly.You ignore the evidence. That's your strategy for defending your faith from the evidence of reality: "Fetch me some evidence" followed by ignoring the evidence and then crowing that nobody has the courage to face your challenge.
Here's one example - somebody fetching you evidence that you then subsequently ignored: The Big Bang and Evolution
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-big-bang-and-evolution.195074/page-37#post-5122044
And here's another: The Big Bang and Evolution
In both cases, people fetched the cut-and-paste evidence you taunted them by saying that they were afraid to bring you, they brought it, and you hid. You failed to respond in either case.
Your game is old and tiresome, and you should probably know counterproductive as well. Just think about what your behavior says about you and your beliefs. You're obviously locked into a concrete confirmation bias that forces you to be intellectually dishonest, there is no value in trying to teach you anything, and your taunts for evidence have nothing to do with you wanting to learn. They're just you being a creationist trying to defend an indefensible position in a world that continually contradicts you, but against which you have no armor better than a ruse.
Perhaps we're no longer interested in the religious apologists' efforts to protect themselves from reality. Find a better resource. How can I trust a site with "research" in it's name that simply preaches bad arguments and does no research?
Oh, and don't forget to cut-and-paste the content from it. When it comes from you, I can't be bothered to click on its link. Your rules.
But give the link anyway to confirm that you didn't alter the cut-and.paste material when copying it. Your ethos is shot.
Last edited:
The subject was mutations. Why are you afraid to stick to the subject?
In far less time than it took you to prepare this post, while you were at the link you referenced, you could have cut and pasted the evidence they offered. The FACT is you couldn't because they had none, or you don't have a clue as to what constitutes evidence, You hope I might read it and like you, think opinions are facts. How sad.
If any of you evos offered me such a challenge, it would be answered immediately. The ruse is yours not mine. If my "game" is old and tiresome, any one with good sense would stop replying to it.
Ps 22:17b - They divided My garments and for My clothing they cast lots.
Jn 19:24 - So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture, They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.
Perhaps we're no longer interested in the religious apologists' efforts to protect themselves from reality. Find a better resource. How can I trust a site with "research" in it's name that simply preaches bad arguments and does no research?
Oh, and don't forget to cut-and-paste the content from it. When it comes from you, I can't be bothered to click on its link. Your rules.
But give the link anyway to confirm that you didn't alter the cut-and.paste material when copying it. Your ethos is shot.[/QUOTE]
You didn't not ask me to. If you ask me to I will do it. I will not be like you and fear reading what real scientist say.
Ps 22:17b - They divided My garments and for My clothing they cast lots.
Jn 19:24 - So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture, They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.
That's obviously incorrect. Their mission is to promote creationism, not to teach science. It they were there to teach science, the content would be the same as a scientific source, and the site's name wouldn't contain the word "creation" in it.
There's a very good reason that non-creationists don't take their science from such sources: They're not trustworthy. Their values, ethics, methods, and agenda are not ours. Christian apologetics is not science. It's marketing Christianity.
Maybe. But why bother?
I doubt that too many posters here care about your evaluation of evidence.
I provided two counterexamples in which posters cut-and-paste evidence for you that you ignored.
Do you think that this is an effective way to promote your point of view? What effect do you think you have on reason and evidence based thinkers? Do you think some are starting to come over, perhaps thinking, "If he can't see evidence, maybe I've been mistaken about those sequenced fossils and nested hierarchies. Maybe they aren't really there. Or if they exist, maybe they aren't evidence of evolution. Maybe the scientific community doesn't understand science as well as the creationists do. Maybe God created the kinds after all."
Are you expecting a lot of that kind of thinking?
I'd tell you what your meta-message is - the message you actually send distinct from the one you're hoping to send - but you wouldn't care.
One doesn't reply to a game. One plays it or doesn't.
Your game is to ask for evidence to be fetched to you so that you can call it worthless opinion. I informed you long ago that we wouldn't be playing that game, and I haven't.
What we are doing here is much more to my liking.
Last edited:
I didn't post what you attributed to me.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
So, to Sum Up: you are saying he is just a Troll, then?
Gotcha. And I agree.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Did that. Bought the T-shirt. YOU IGNORED THE POSTS AND RAN AWAY....
So, to Sum Up: you are saying he is just a Troll, then?
Gotcha. And I agree.
I think that people like Omega are not aware of how they appear. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes that he is correct and doing the right thing, so I wouldn't use the word "troll." That words implies a desire to be malicious or counterproductive.
What we see with Omega is a faith based confirmation bias that selects what he can see and cannot see before ideas ever enter his consciousness looks.
When people report that they can't see the evidence, or can't see how what is presented constitutes evidence, they aren't lying. In fact, they think the people disagreeing with them are lying - deliberately spreading known falsehoods - and wonder why they are being so dishonest.
The epiphany came for me after reading former young earth creationist Glenn Morton's account of his journey out of YEC-ism. I believe that he is still a creationist, but gave up the idea of a young earth, which he held despite being a geologist. He described what he called Morton's demon
Morton's demon is the anthropomorphizing of this process invoking an imaginary demon analogous to Maxwell's demon who sits at the portal to your mind and admits some idea while blocking others according to whether they support or contradict the ideas believed by faith. It was the invention of earth scientists and former young earth creationist (YEC) - now an old earth creationist (OEC):
"Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon, Morton''s demon < Creation Science, Morton's Demon >, on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.
[snip]
"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it
[snip]
"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."
Morton is describing his own experience both in and out of YEC. I find him sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. The mystery is how he broke free.
This process, as you know, also goes by the name "antiprocessing"
.Antiprocess - Wikipedia - "is the preemptive recognition and marginalization of undesired information by the interplay of mental defense mechanisms: the subconscious compromises information that would cause cognitive dissonance."
If this is what is happening with Omega, troll is my choice of words for him. He can't see what we tell him he is doing and how he appears to others. It's not part of his faith based idea of reality or his place in it, and his confirmation bias (demon) won't let him see it.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Antiprocess. Agreed. I am dealing with a couple of different posters who suffer from a similar problem.
They can only (and ever) understand an Authoritarian Faith-based worldview.
As such, they believe that everyone suffers under this mental handicap. They literally cannot grasp what it means to not see the world according to some "authority" or other.
It's frustrating as heck.
If you could, you would prove I am wrong and you are right.
Unless they can prove it wrong they should be.
They only posted opinions, not scientific evidence.
The FACT than none of the evos have cut and pasted the evidence from their link is a perfect way to show they have not.
I use to expect at least one would accept my challenge and post the evidence from their link. I no longer expect that. All I expect now is them avoiding a simple request like you continue to do.
Not true. I have one message---present the evidence your link offers.
If you could win, you would play. You have no evidence so by default you lose.
Of course it is. This keeps your ignorance of evidence from being exposed.
Altfish
Veteran Member
A master class in apologetics.
Painful to see, I do wonder how they believe that scientists managed to invent the internet that the apologists spread their faith based ideas on.
Ho hum
I did not ignore it. I may not have replied to it because you offered no evidence.
You got caught in the same lie twice and are too deeply encased in a confirmation bias to confront that. You said that nobody had accommodate your "challenge," and you were shown to be wrong. You were also shown to do exactly what you were accused of doing: Disregard the material you asked for.
You didn't even bother to acknowledge it until I reposted the links, which exposed you playing that game, are now exposed playing another game, the one where when confronted by evidence and called on ignoring it, you dismiss it all as opinion without addressing a single word of the content. In fact,there's no evidence that you even looked at it.
And you're at your tired and effete game again:
Omega said: "I use to expect at least one would accept my challenge and post the evidence from their link. I no longer expect that. All I expect now is them avoiding a simple request like you continue to do."
You live in a dream world where you just spin your own reality, and apparently have no sense of how you appear to others. Your credibility is shot. That's the cost of welcoming faith based thought into your head: Morton's demon.
A master class in apologetics.
Painful to see, I do wonder how they believe that scientists managed to invent the internet that the apologists spread their faith based ideas on.
Ho hum
You might like this:
"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.
"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.
"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.
A master class in apologetics.
Painful to see, I do wonder how they believe that scientists managed to invent the internet that the apologists spread their faith based ideas on.
Ho hum
Your rhetoric only shows your inability to post any evidence in any of your links. Thanks.
Just more rhetoric that you can't post any evidence from one of you links. Thanks again for confirming again I am right.