Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to rusra02: Following is part of one of my posts from another thread that you did not reply to:
That is proof that your supposed interest in science is not genuine.
Agnostic75 said:How can you reject evolution when you continue to refuse to discuss Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum? You are opposing something that you do not even understand. You do not even understand the basics of biology, let alone advanced biology, and geology. This could easily be proven with a quick question and answer session where you would agree not to consult any sources, and only provide answers based upon your own knowledge.
As Dr. Miller said in his article, the flagellum is sometimes referred to as creationists' "poster child" since they believe that it provides excellent evidence for creationism. Well, how much do you know about that "poster child," not things that you can copy, but things that you understand yourself? You criticize other people, but you consistently refuse to show what your scientific academic credentials are.
One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution.
Some black African Christian creationists live in remote jungle regions in the world, do not know how to read or write, and have very little contact with the outside world. Have they "examined the evidence" of evolution in detail? Of course not, not even minimally, and yet you are happy that they became Christians even though they know next to nothing about science. So, "examining the evidence" is not really an issue for you after all as long as people choose to believe what you want them to believe.
So now we have an answer to my question. I said "Do you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to accept creationism, and the global flood story?" As I just showed with the African scenario, your obvious answer is "yes," which invites the question "Since science doesn't really matter to you after all, why are you making posts in a science forum?"
As far as "the popular course" is concerned, you do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Until the 1800s, "the popular course" for most Christians was accepting creationism, and the global flood theory. Christians who did not accept those theories were widely criticized. As science began to develop further, fewer Christians chose to be inerrantists. So, until the 1800s, you had exactly the situation that you wanted, where most Christians accepted creationism, and the global flood theory, but it did not last. Until theistic evolution became popular, it took a lot of courage for some Christians to publically accept it. They did not accept "the popular course." They did what they believed what right.
It is reasonable to assume that the majority of Christians in the world do not know enough about biology, and geology, to claim from an entirely scientific perspective, that creationism, and the global flood theory, are true.
That is proof that your supposed interest in science is not genuine.
Last edited: