I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Subduction Zone]

You've read the Watchtower publications, the Creation books? There's actually two of them, though they are pretty old they makes sense to me. You've seen the videos by David Berlinski and even 100 reasons why evolution is stupid?

That only means that you are rather gullible. Why don't you investigate the actual science instead of relying on Berlinski's dishonest strawman arguments?

If you ask questions politely here you will get polite responses. Relying on strawman arguments is never polite. I could give you some really poor strawman arguments about Christianity. I am sure you would be able to see the fallacies in them immediately. You would not like those, just as those that understand the sciences do not appreciate strawman arguments either.

 

[Earthling]

That only means that you are rather gullible. Why don't you investigate the actual science instead of relying on Berlinski's dishonest strawman arguments?

If you ask questions politely here you will get polite responses. Relying on strawman arguments is never polite. I could give you some really poor strawman arguments about Christianity. I am sure you would be able to see the fallacies in them immediately. You would not like those, just as those that understand the sciences do not appreciate strawman arguments either.

Well, sir, I will take you up on that so long as you and anyone else here wishes to inform me yourselves. Not, though, to tell me to go read some website or Richard Dawkins books on the subject. I know how to do a search. Deal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, sir, I will take you up on that so long as you and anyone else here wishes to inform me yourselves. Not, though, to tell me to go read some website or Richard Dawkins books on the subject. I know how to do a search. Deal?

That's fine. Reasonable questions will be answered. You can even ask about the arguments that Berlinski makes. I will gladly explain how he is wrong and if necessary find you sources.

One thing that should set off alarm bells when dealing with the sciences. In the world of science today new ideas are presented through the process of peer review. Many new ideas are shown to be wrong, even after they go through peer review. But almost every idea that avoids peer review is shown to be wrong very quickly. Remember "cold fusion". If someone avoids peer review it is usually because they know that they are wrong. Peer review saves the time of scientists by sifting out a lot of the dross. Creationists avoid peer review in well respected professional journals like the plague. You really should be asking why.

 

[Earthling]

That's fine. Reasonable questions will be answered. You can even ask about the arguments that Berlinski makes. I will gladly explain how he is wrong and if necessary find you sources.

One thing that should set off alarm bells when dealing with the sciences. In the world of science today new ideas are presented through the process of peer review. Many new ideas are shown to be wrong, even after they go through peer review. But almost every idea that avoids peer review is shown to be wrong very quickly. Remember "cold fusion". If someone avoids peer review it is usually because they know that they are wrong. Peer review saves the time of scientists by sifting out a lot of the dross. Creationists avoid peer review in well respected professional journals like the plague. You really should be asking why.

I pay absolutely no attention to Creationist. I consider the issue to be a waste of time. 99% of traditional theology to me is rubbish. I pay little attention to that as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I pay absolutely no attention to Creationist. I consider the issue to be a waste of time. 99% of traditional theology to me is rubbish. I pay little attention to that as well.

So why did you say : "You've seen the videos by David Berlinski and even 100 reasons why evolution is stupid?"

Wait a second, wasn't that latter part from Kent (I am a tax cheat) Hovind?


That is pure science denialism if that is where you got that from.

 

[Earthling]

So why did you say : "You've seen the videos by David Berlinski and even 100 reasons why evolution is stupid?"

Wait a second, wasn't that latter part from Kent (I am a tax cheat) Hovind?


That is pure science denialism if that is where you got that from.

Anything that disagrees with evolution, in the mind of the evolutionist, is stupid.
Human nature. Remove evolution and put anything else in it's stead and it will work the same.

Let's not waste our time with that "logic."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything that disagrees with evolution, in the mind of the evolutionist, is stupid.
Human nature. Remove evolution and put anything else in it's stead and it will work the same.

Let's not waste our time with that "logic."

Wrong, it is when one disagrees with ideas that have been tested and confirmed in the sciences that one is regarded as "stupid".

Your last two sentences make no sense at all.

 

[Earthling]

Wrong, it is when one disagrees with ideas that have been tested and confirmed in the sciences that one is regarded as "stupid".

Your last two sentences make no sense at all.

Very well. Let's challenge that claim. If science discovers, by it's usual means, that the theory of gravity or evolution is incorrect would that be regarded as "stupid." That seems to be what you are indicating. That confirmed science, peer reviewed, objective evidence, and all of the other terms you like to use to make it sound as if theory is infallible once it has the stamp of science on it, and compared to what? Traditional modern day Christian theology? So what! Evolution and modern day Christian theology come from the same source. Greek philosophy.

Your claims are arrogant and full of holes. Science is the imperfect musings of imperfect man. Evolution is a failed metaphysical experimentation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very well. Let's challenge that claim. If science discovers, by it's usual means, that the theory of gravity or evolution is incorrect would that be regarded as "stupid." That seems to be what you are indicating. That confirmed science, peer reviewed, objective evidence, and all of the other terms you like to use to make it sound as if theory is infallible once it has the stamp of science on it, and compared to what? Traditional modern day Christian theology? So what! Evolution and modern day Christian theology come from the same source. Greek philosophy.

Your claims are arrogant and full of holes. Science is the imperfect musings of imperfect man. Evolution is a failed metaphysical experimentation.

Do you think that is very likely? Plus you are supposed to be asking honest questions. The reason that those that support creationism are quite often regards as stupid is because they use false arguments. Popular creationists tend to be either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid.

Now no theory is technically "infallible' but do you think that gravity will be found to be wrong? Do you think that those relying on a book of myths would be the ones to refute it?

Please, you were supposed to ask polite questions and all you can demonstrate is your own incredible ignorance and arrogance. You are projecting your more than obvious flaws upon others.

 

[Earthling]

Do you think that is very likely? Plus you are supposed to be asking honest questions.

Here we go . . . ask an evolutionist how it is possible to ask a stupid or dishonest question. It's simply a matter of heresy. Nonsense. Weak.

The reason that those that support creationism are quite often regards as stupid is because they use false arguments. Popular creationists tend to be either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid.

Irrelevant. You are simply saying, over and over again, in one way or another, that evolution isn't theory it's fact and anyone questioning it is stupid and or dishonest. I don't care. Convince this stupid liar.

Now answer the question.

Now no theory is technically "infallible' but do you think that gravity will be found to be wrong? Do you think that those relying on a book of myths would be the ones to refute it?

By your first labeling the book myth? The point is moot. We aren't talking about the book now so why bring it up?

If you and I could go back in time to the point where evolution or creation were verifiable then we could say for a fact one or the other is FACT. We can not.

Please, you were supposed to ask polite questions and all you can demonstrate is your own incredible ignorance and arrogance. You are projecting your more than obvious flaws upon others.

Empty. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen, you are the wrong person for me to be talking to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go . . . ask an evolutionist how it is possible to ask a stupid or dishonest question. It's simply a matter of heresy. Nonsense. Weak..

This is rather foolish and rude on your part. "Gothca" questions are almost alway stupid or dishonest. An honest question is one where one truly tries to learn. Once again, you are projecting. I have a feeling that you will continue to do so. Unlike your religious beliefs there is no dogma in the sciences.

Irrelevant. You are simply saying, over and over again, in one way or another, that evolution isn't theory it's fact and anyone questioning it is stupid and or dishonest. I don't care.

Now answer the question.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. Gravity is a theory and a fact, evolution is a theory and a fact. And it is the way that people question it that they almost always demonstrate that they are either stupid or dishonest. You are not doing so well yourself here.

By your first labeling the book myth? The point is moot. We aren't talking about the book now so why bring it up?

You brought up Christianity, not me. How could you forget so soon?

If you and I could go back in time to the point where evolution or creation were verifiable then we could say for a fact one or the other is FACT. We can not.

Evolution is verifiable right now. No need to go back in time. Once again you merely demonstrate that you do not understand the sciences.

Empty. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen, you are the wrong person for me to be talking to.

I can take the heat. I am rather disgusted by the hypocrisy is all.

 

[Earthling]

Unlike your religious beliefs there is no dogma in the sciences.

False

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. Gravity is a theory and a fact, evolution is a theory and a fact.

From The NCSE "Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light." NCSE

Am I going to have to do all the work for you while you offer me vague, subtle insults to my intelligence? Let's just move on to my thread, Learning: Introduction.

We are wasting our time here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

People that make that claim almost always do not know what a theory is.

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

Yes, that is another typical error of creationists. Theories do not become facts. Theories explain facts. The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light. NCSE

Oh my! I am a bit surprised. You did a little homework. Though that does not support your ignorant claim about dogma in science.

Am I going to have to do all the work for you while you offer me vague, subtle insults to my intelligence? Let's just move on to my thread, Learning: Introduction.

We are wasting our time here.

Please, you have insulted your own intelligence. I was polite. You were rude. I offered to answer properly asked questions and that was too much for you.

But you may be right. If you refuse to learn then there is no point in going on. There are Christians that are not afraid of science. There are Christians that realize one does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, sir, I will take you up on that so long as you and anyone else here wishes to inform me yourselves. Not, though, to tell me to go read some website or Richard Dawkins books on the subject. I know how to do a search. Deal?

That's fine. Reasonable questions will be answered. You can even ask about the arguments that Berlinski makes. I will gladly explain how he is wrong and if necessary find you sources.

One thing that should set off alarm bells when dealing with the sciences. In the world of science today new ideas are presented through the process of peer review. Many new ideas are shown to be wrong, even after they go through peer review. But almost every idea that avoids peer review is shown to be wrong very quickly. Remember "cold fusion". If someone avoids peer review it is usually because they know that they are wrong. Peer review saves the time of scientists by sifting out a lot of the dross. Creationists avoid peer review in well respected professional journals like the plague. You really should be asking why.

I am just using the "way-back machine" to show how an offer was made, and I do admit rather politely. And then politely accepted by me.

My question is what happened? What caused him to go off the rails with rudeness?

 

[Earthling]

I am just using the "way-back machine" to show how an offer was made, and I do admit rather politely. And then politely accepted by me.

My question is what happened? What caused him to go off the rails with rudeness?

Your constant insulting of my intelligence. I ask you to teach me, is that not an admission of ignorance? You don't have to convince me of my ignorance you have to convince yourself and the audience for the sake of reaffirmation?

You're not telling me anything new, you are just saying if I don't believe in evolution, which is itself, a nonsensical oxymoron, I'm an idiot.

Don't do that. Teach me about science and evolution and we will get along just fine.

 

[Earthling]

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance.



People that make that claim almost always do not know what a theory is.



Yes, that is another typical error of creationists. Theories do not become facts. Theories explain facts. The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.



Oh my! I am a bit surprised. You did a little homework. Though that does not support your ignorant claim about dogma in science.



Please, you have insulted your own intelligence. I was polite. You were rude. I offered to answer properly asked questions and that was too much for you.

But you may be right. If you refuse to learn then there is no point in going on. There are Christians that are not afraid of science. There are Christians that realize one does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

We're done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your constant insulting of my intelligence. I ask you to teach me, is that not an admission of ignorance? You don't have to convince me of my ignorance you have to convince yourself and the audience for the sake of reaffirmation?

You're not telling me anything new, you are just saying if I don't believe in evolution, which is itself, a nonsensical oxymoron, I'm an idiot.

Don't do that. Teach me about science and evolution and we will get along just fine.

You know that is not true. Let's try to stick to the facts here. You may realize that you are wrong and that defending a false belief is making you look bad.

You were supposed to ask proper questions. You never did that. I was more than polite and you suddenly became rude for no apparent reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're done.

Why? Because I won't let you get away with rude arrogant ignorance?

You have no education in the sciences, you rely on dishonest people, and when called out on that instead of apologizing and correcting your behavior you have a hissy fit.

 

[Darkstorn]

Let's play a game of superlatives:

Small, smaller, smallest. Simple, simpler, RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha.

 

[Earthling]

Let's play a game of superlatives:

Small, smaller, smallest. Simple, simpler, RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha.

Very convincing!