No... some things just aren't worth the effort. Been on this merry-go-round with you before... nothing has changed.
-
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 Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
More than opinion documented as false. This is a dodge and failure to respond.
More than opinion documented as false. This is a dodge and failure to respond. Actually, more recent discoveries and research demonstrate that the population was larger.
Please respond to the posts without the brevity of dodging the information.
Coherent responses with reasonable knowledge is worth the effort. At present, without responses, your views can be easily dismissed.
At present, you sit in the penalty box with @leroy, and @FllA @YoursTrue for the following fallacy
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia
The invincible ignorance fallacy,[1] also known as argument by pigheadedness,[2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
Last edited:
Really??
"Which tell us your version of God plays dice with the universe when it created humans."
Do you really think this is an honest dialogue?
No... your statement above is also an opinion of what you think is worth answering in someone else's post.
I guess you didn't read what I said... my response was very coherent and your statement here can be easily dismissed. Now, if YOU have an intelligent question, I will be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.
Only insofar as you prefer your religious beliefs that not only lack evidence but are also contrary to what science reveals. Yours is the “opinion” since it is emotional and not rational. Others form opinions based on experts and evidence.
You continue to post non-factual beliefs and seem to expect science has changed in your favor in the meantime. It hasn’t. You find yourself corrected on errors and then bow out when unable to rebut knowledge.
Replying to posts with the simple statement 'opinion' is not a coherent response.
Question: What can be possibly considered factual about the Genesis Creation account especially the story of Adam and Eve and the flood?
And yet so many scientists fin it very rational.
If my information is correct, on of the professors at Cambridge was a nonbeliever until he met Srinivasa Ramanujan. After Srinivasa Ramanujan death the professor said, (summary) "If we are constantly trying to discover the perfect math that is already out there, then there must be a God that created it"
So, whether factual or non-factual, it pretty much ends up being where you follow a particular faith or religion or you follow the religion of atheism.
No there are NOT so many.
This is severely anecdotal and not meaningful.
Understanding what is math may help see the problem with the above.
The logic of math simply evolved as a problem-solving toolbox for human use beginning with simply counting things like sheep to the toolbox of contemporary science and the functional world. There is no such thing as perfection in math, despite the odd quote above.
Last edited:
As far as "what is factual" - is an ongoing debate. At one time they believe that King David wasn't factual until they found evidence of King David. Then they though that the size of his kingdom wasn't factual, until the discovered an outpost at the furthest point of his kingdom.
In other words, archaeology that confirms the factual vs non-factual is painstakingly long and science continues to correct itself. What we do know is that many archaeologists use the Bible to find thins like this:
A recent discovery that validated the two mountains where one declared blessings on one mountain and on declare curses on the other. One could say "myth" until they found it. It is no longer a myth.
So what are we left with? Consistency of evidence and "potential" realities that have yet to be proven. It doesn't mean it is but a myth since the the consistency of what we find corroborate the history given.
So, my personal viewpoint, which you can have a different viewpoint:
Genesis 5 - notice the detail that is repeated in Luke 3. One doesn't usually find myths having actual genealogies. I find that to be true. You don't have to agree, but there is no reason for me not to believe the accuracy of the genealogy.
Before I move on... I have touched on one item that I believe can be factual in Genesis. (Don't want to put too many items at the same time)
There is no problem that there are individual sort of factual events and persons in the Bible as with all ancient narratives in all religions, but you did not respond to the question:
What can be considered remotely factual concerning the Creation story of Genesis and the Noah Flood?
No credible scientist believes in any Christian interpretation of Genesis. None of the Christian claims are rational because they do not follow facts or knowledge about how things are.
Who cares what one guy decided to believe? It has nothing to do with science, and the valid conclusions in science and reason that follows facts. Evolution is a real phenomenon tnat explains the diversity of life on this planet. Christians who have religious opinions are shown to be wrong time and time again. Even you offer no rebuttal. What is the best you can do? Cite one guy who made personal decisions about his personal beliefs, and none of that is relevant to science.
You have made general claims about the nature of the universe, that your version of God exists via your interpretation of Genesis. It isn't consistent with facts or observations. If what you claim is true then what we observe and understand about reality means your God is responsible for horrific things. You want it both ways. You want a God that caused everything, except the bad things. It's typical conservative Christian beliefs, and they get rebutted in these forums. They are shown to be absurd, and contradictory.
No it doesn't. There is no religion of atheism. I see this last desverate claim by believers which is self-defeating. Look at how flawed your thinking is here. You accuse atheism of being a religion, and it is wrong (because you are religious). But what you reveal here is that religions are wrong, and that implicates your version of Christianity as being wrong (which we have already shown). What you are trying to do here is you acknowldge your religious beliefs are not valid, not factual, not reasoned, so what is left, try to attach atheism to the failed religious category so you can drag atheism down as your religion goes down. You show more flawed thinking though, because those of us advocating for the accuracy of science are doing so on the strength of the evidence and the reliability of the scientific method, not on a dogma of atheism.
You are better off accepting science and rejecting your flawed religious beliefs. And if you can't, you are better off not exposing yourself to criticism for your beliefs in forums that include well educated people who aren't under the influence of bad religion. Your choice. If you keev posting untrue beliefs you can expect criticism of your thinking and belief.
remember that you claimed you had a methematical conclusion, and I asked you to show your work. You didn't. That suggests you are making claims that you know you can't support, and how is that honorable? You are an ambassador for your religion and if you show a dark side to it that is a turn off.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You appear to be unaware of the difference between an opinion and claims that are well supported by evidence. If you disagree with a statement it is wiser to try to find out if a person can support his or her claims.
I'm sorry, but Adam is in the Creation story. If we are talking about factual events, he is included and just ignoring it and then say I am not answering your question would be erroneous. Right?
That Creation was begun by God. (The method is not stipulated - so evolution is not denied or promoted). Of course, this will be unverifiable even as any ex nilio creation is not verifiable. Each position will be held, at some point, as a postulate
That there is a difference between man and animals. That in his creation, he was created by God and not by evolution. (We also create out of stem-cells and the manipulation of genes - so it is entirely possible). The does not preclude the presence of other two legged beings. Again, can't be confirmed or denied (as I stipulated about archaeology)
You are misrepresenting Einstein's anecdotal expression. In reality, Einstein does not believe in a Theistic God.
As far as the nature of the factual evidence I will go with science with confidence.
From my part yes, and as factual as possible concerning the nature of our physical existence.
This is an open form my questions are addressed to all.
No, Adam is not a factual person. and we are not talking about factual events as far as the Creation story. Humans have been around for a hundred thousand years and more. I am making legitimate questions concerning the Biblical Mythology of Genesis and Exodus without documentation in history or provenance of the texts.
I believe it is stipulated to preclude evolution. The generations defined in the text also negate the geologic age of humans and the earth.
I believe by the text evolution is rejected, and yes Creation ex-nilo is a religious belief and as described in the Bible rejects the scientific origins history of our universe, life, and humanity.
This is based on the Bible is rejection of the natural evolution of life and humanity as one process.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you talking about the small piece of lead found that had supposedly had curses on it? That has been debunked. It was pareidolia at best. I could probably dig up a link on it if needed.
Astrophile
Active Member
According to the website of the Natural History Museum - Dinosaur Diaries: Human cancer found in dinosaur bone - it was an osteosarcoma in the right fibula of an Upper Cretaceous horned dinosaur (a Centrosaurus) found in Alberta (Canada).
Didn't sound like it... and I wasn't misrepresenting anything... it was someone's post.
your statement doesn't make it so. (which you can say of me too). You haven't established that it is a mythology so it remains your viewpoint.
Support please.
Support please... and it is no more a "religion" than someone who religiously says "It wasn't God".
Support please.