Figures.
-
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!
Life From Dirt?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Figures.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If I thought you understood the estimations of the scientific propositions you offer, I might pay more attention. If, in fact, you could say more than it's the truth. But instead if you can analyze and explain it.
Oh i understand them and precisely how accurate they are, that's why i bring them into the conversation
But
You want people to think for you and give you the answer your belief wants. Life doesn't work like that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not seem to understand that when you call something "guesswork" that puts a burden of proof upon you.
Let's say I claimed that @ChristineM was a shoplifter and that she stole a 20 cans of Americas finest spray cheese:
If I did such an act the burden of proof would be upon me. Good luck with me proving that. The same rules apply to you when you call the work of scientists "guess work".
The evidence is voluminous and consilient. The methods of scientific inquiry are many. You're asking Christine to write a textbook. You should have learned this in high school and Middle school.
There were lots of warmer periods -- and colder. What's your point?
You believe something that is unfounded and unevidenced, yet you criticize the methods and evidence of countervailing terms.
If "A" is well evidenced, and "B" is not, why do you choose B?
No. The evidence is already on the table. It's you who are not thinking.
Wrong. I know what the evidence is and think about it quite often
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oops! I think that I made the same mistake that @Valjean appears to have made. Or maybe you did steal my precious cheese!!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh my god, my Grandmother used to bring this stuff back from the US for me on her visits because we don't have it here and I'm disgusting and I used to love it.
What mistake is that? I am at a loss here
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I think @Valjean thought that he was responding to @YoursTrue . When I read his post I thought the same thing. Then I saw your "Wrong." and had to go back. His post only makes sense to me if he did somehow conflate you two (canes, oh wait I am male canards) Hmm, Google translate might be off.
You lump them together?!
That’s a hoot!
TalkOrigins defends the naturalistic paradigm of UCA evolution, or at least they try to. Their rebuttals against evidence supporting ID, often fail. Some are epic.
That’s why I encouraged @Little Dragon to check out TalkOrigin, as it tries to defend pro-naturalism sources, like evolutionary scientists, NCSE, etc., from others who reveal their blunders & inadequacies. TalkOrigins does present some useful arguments
Here’s the url that I used (I should have posted it in my earlier post):
This page from talk.origins deals with “Large gaps” in the fossil record, so its author pounces on punctuated equilibrium as an explanation. But that is simply ‘scientific apologetics.’
Since gradualism is not reflected in the Record, another explanation had to be devised, to fit what is discovered.
It’s all about interpretation of the facts… A lot of scientists, especially those who aren’t threatened with losing their job or status, agree with me and others, that the evidence supports the conclusion that a Mind was behind the origin of life, and of most of the first creatures representing their respective Family taxa…
And species diversified from that point on.
Only if you accept naturalism as the source of everything, yes.
But then, there’s so much other phenomena that you'll never be able to explain.
I’m curious, ChristineM (and @shunyadragon & @Little Dragon )…. What’s your explanation for posters on this very forum, interacting with invisible entities?
Or others — credible witnesses — like Winston Churchill, or Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, who interacted with a being claiming to be Abraham Lincoln?
Churchill & Queen Wilhelmina are just two of countless others, interacting with different entities!
Granted, not every claimed interaction is genuine…. Some people, who claim such experiences, are mentally unbalanced, or possibly not trustworthy….. But every single one of them? If so, then you’re calling many on here, either delusional, or liars.
Not everything that exists, arose from physics & materialism.
@YoursTrue , what do you think?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What "large gaps"? Your source is 40 years old. An amazing number of "gaps" have been filled in since then. The only ones left are ones that we never expected to see filled and even some of those are being filled. And why do you refer only to the fossil record? Do you think that is the only evidence for evolution. Do you even think that is the strongest evidence for evolution? The fossil record is useful because it does tell us of some specific lineages and for the amateur it is the easiest evidence to understand.
Funny that no scientists can find any evidence for a mind being behind evolution. You should try to understand the concept of evidence. And can you please ease up on the Green Ink?
That is because that is the only concept supported by evidence. Creationists almost never understand the concept. And those that do seem to be afraid to state their ideas in a form where they could eventually get evidence for them. Can you explain that?
I could find nothing about Churchill doing that. Perhaps you or your source was confused since he did write about him a lot. I did not even bother with Willie. When you make such claims you need to try to support them with reliable soruces.
The do not have to be mentally unbalanced to be wrong. I have talked with many believers in ghosts here. They all tend to use very poor methodology. Their "evidence" seem convincing to the uneducated, but they very often plant the seed in people that they deal with. Unfortunately due to their methodology all that they have are a collection of anecdotes. They do not have evidence either.
How would you support that claim properly? Believers do not understand how the mind will often not understand concepts on purpose when their cherished beliefs are threatened. That is why scientists have a very clear and rational definition of evidence. Their definition ends up putting the burden of proof upon deniers. If you look at Lucy and the details that tell us of our and chimp's relationship to her and say "That's not evidence" you have only demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You would actually have to show how and why that evidence is wrong. And no creationist seems to be able to do that either.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Hi. I read about the reported sightings by renowned figures including Winston Churchill and D. Eisenhower of Abraham Lincoln at the White House. Interesting to say the least.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I am willing to listen to any anecdotal claim. However there is absolutely no real reason for me to believe any unsupported claim, even if the claimants genuinely believe they are telling the truth. All I can believe is that they had some kind of experience.
However, I do not reject all claims about the supernatural. Out of hand. I am willing to consider them. I do not believe that the existence of supernatural entities necessarily means that any particular human made God, actually exists. The claim that cupboards and doors open and close of their own violation in a reportedly haunted house does not mean, that Jesus died for my sins or that Muhammed was the last prophet or that living organisms were created by an intelligent designer.
. . . and Elvis Presley in the Jungle Room at Graceland
