You use the word prove a lot. Proof is not the standard for belief. In the case of the creationist, it's faith. In the case of the rational skeptic, it's evidence. Proof is necessary for certitude, but we seldom have this, nor do we need it to have justified belief.
I have been using the word "prove" ironically.
Members on this thread have claimed repeatedly that my beliefs have been proven wrong.
All this began when I shared my opinion on this thread. Then these members claimed that my opinion was wrong. When I asked them what led them to that claim they gave vague answers like "science" or "genetics".
When I asked them for specifics they claimed that "it has been shown" that Man evolved from another species and that the idea of a worldwide Flood "had been refuted".
When I mentioned that nothing has been "shown" or "refuted" or "proven", they all mocked me and claimed that I did not know what evidence was.
It was they who made claims about "proof" then never provided said "proof" and mocked me for asking for the "proof" that they themselves claimed to have.
What many others have told you is that the citations from Hawking that you presented don't mean what you claimed they do. Why you don't agree is a mystery, but it doesn't change the consensus viewpoint about your claim, which is not going to change. Absolutely nobody agreed with you, and none of us have any reason to change our minds. We can read your claims, your supporting evidence, understand both, and reject your conclusion quite easily and steadfastly.
Yeah, that's fine. Whatever.
It does not matter whether anyone agrees with me. What does matter is if anyone can explain how my interpretation of what Hawking said was wrong.
I have asked numerous times for people to explain how I am wrong, but they have refused to do so.
That seems to be the general theme of this discussion.
Everyone laughs at me, says that I'm wrong and claims that there is evidence that "proves" that I am wrong - but they never share that evidence.
And for the record, there is no duty to support any opinion unless you want to be believed and are working with a person whose conclusions are routinely grounded in reason applied to evidence.
Exactly. I have not tried to support any opinion.
All I claimed was that I had not seen any conflict between my personal beliefs and scientific evidences and I asked people to present what they believed was the most compelling evidence for their arguments.
None of them would.
When dealing with faith based thinkers, there is no hope of convincing them with evidence, so there is no point trying.
Well, that explains this entire thread.
You all judge others and look down on them for disagreeing with you and make no effort to explain yourselves.
I may someday encounter an exception to that - a creationist who really is open to considering evidence impartially and with a the ability and willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. So, my response is always to ask the creationist to make a good faith effort to show me that he is sincere and eager to learn by going to the Internet, Googing the topic, finding web sites with answers to some or all of his question, and reporting back what he learned, what he agrees with, and what he doesn't understand and could use help with.
Guess how many times the creationist has taken me up on that? Never.Not once. I've saved an equivalent amount of pointless effort.
You understand that the exact opposite is also true.
Are you willing to go to Sunday worship services, study and pray about the scripture sincerely, take history and religion classes, serve a proselyting mission, etc. etc. - and then report back to me and request my help to understand?
You wouldn't do that.
Besides, what's the point in studying anything when none of you feel compelled to even present your arguments?
Talk about wasted time and effort on my part.
Some call this the creationist shuffle - ask for evidence, don't look at it, say that you weren't convinced, and then claim that nobody can prove anything as if that were due to a deficiency in the offered evidence rather than the creationist doing the shuffle.
Except for the fact that no evidence was ever provided. It was just alluded to existing over and over again.
You use the word opinion in a peculiar way too. If you are going to call all statements opinions, I won't quibble with that. Yes, it is my opinion that the sun will dawn tomorrow morning, but it's more than just an opinion. It's a justified belief. If your opinion were the opposite, it would also be an opinion, but should not be considered equal.
That analogy does not apply.
What I have been saying is that I have not yet seen any conflict between my beliefs concerning the Creation and any scientific evidence.
Other forum members claim that there is conflict.
Therefore, I asked them to support their claim of conflict with evidence and they have not.
Likewise in this matter. The conclusions of about a half dozen judges in agreement that the citations you provided don't support the claim you made has the status of the sun dawning.
Judges usually explain what led them to their verdict.
They don't say, "You're guilty just because."
None will be moved by you merely disagreeing and calling it all opinion.
Right back at you.
