Questions ....Answers?

[ttechsan]

You prove my point because a person really interested in being educated would check out other resources but you bias won't allow it. check this out and follow up other links and what you have been told and taught is discussed by former evolutionist scientist. If you don't believe it is possible then read it and re convince them with all your knowledge so superior to theirs. It is being well rounded in education.

Heck do as I was told to do once by a teacher. Do debate taking one side and then do it having to take the other side. It is eye opening, esp if objective and let the science math or whatever speak for itself.

I find it so interesting that few people actually pay attention to how things are worded in evolutionist work in text, articles, books etc. They skim and don't read deeply to see what it is really saying. But you sure have the right to do as you do but don't accuse others of doing what you are guilty of, esp when you don't know all the research and background of other posters and esp links posted too.

If nothing else get on the sites and educate all these others that have no credentials etc. I dare you to do so because you won't be as the movie line says,"You can't handle the Truth!"

 

[darkendless]

You prove my point because a person really interested in being educated would check out other resources but you bias won't allow it. check this out and follow up other links and what you have been told and taught is discussed by former evolutionist scientist. If you don't believe it is possible then read it and re convince them with all your knowledge so superior to theirs. It is being well rounded in education.

Heck do as I was told to do once by a teacher. Do debate taking one side and then do it having to take the other side. It is eye opening, esp if objective and let the science math or whatever speak for itself.

I find it so interesting that few people actually pay attention to how things are worded in evolutionist work in text, articles, books etc. They skim and don't read deeply to see what it is really saying. But you sure have the right to do as you do but don't accuse others of doing what you are guilty of, esp when you don't know all the research and background of other posters and esp links posted too.

If nothing else get on the sites and educate all these others that have no credentials etc. I dare you to do so because you won't be as the movie line says,"You can't handle the Truth!"

Don't be naive enough to think that what you've posted is original. I've seen that link posted several times. Theres no bias, i'm simply suggesting that they're forsaking a well reasoned method of investigation in favour of "Goddidit," which to anyone without God-bias is rather strange.

Given that scientific wording is similar to the wording used by engineering I am well aware of the implications of the text. I understand that to those stupid enough to think that evolution is 100% accurate that the use of ambiguous wording may be somewhat contentious.

It bothers me that you think that you can broadly group supporters of evolution into a group and assume we all don't read things properly, and that we're all biased. Have you ever worked in a field of science?

 

[darkendless]

If nothing else get on the sites and educate all these others that have no credentials etc. I dare you to do so because you won't be as the movie line says,"You can't handle the Truth!"

I have better things to do than educate the willfully ignorant.

 

[McBell]

I have better things to do than educate the willfully ignorant.

Seems to me all that is left is for him to fly on home and claim victory!

 

[Quintessence]

He does actually have some fair points, guys. Both those in support of literalistic creation accounts and of scientific creation accounts are guilty of bias (confirmation bias, more specifically). Unfortunately this point is being lost in a mire of poor choices of communication.

 

[camanintx]

Too me IMHO I can't for the life of me figure out how a single (simple if such a thing exists, which there isn't the more we know) cell become both plants and animals and on up the line from common ancestor.

You are good at asking questions. Let's see how well you can answer them.

How long do you think it takes for a single cell organism to grow into something as complex as a human being?

 

[Krok]

This is why it matters. I personally get tired of the way our questions are answered with none answers.

Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

How many Steves are on your list, ttechsan?

(By the way, your source is misleading you. For example, "Dr" Gentry, on that list of yours, doesn't have a doctorate in any natural science; he's got an honorary doctorate from some Bible College)

 

[Skepsis2]

This confuses me so I decided to ask. Does the fact that someone I totally disagree with on many subjects mean they can't ask a legitimate question that needs a serious answer? I dislike BO as prez as much as anyone could for so many reasons (not race). Does that mean, despite all that, he can't ask a good legitimate question that doesn't deserve an answer or reply?

Why I ask is this. It seems so often on boards and discussions that people are attacked personally and totally ignored just because they come from a different side, idealism than oneself. Thus they will totally disregard the question as if it can't be legitimate due to who ask it. I don't get this.

Why do both creationist and evolutionist act so often as if the other side can't ask a legitimate question so it is ignored or made fun of just because they are not on the same side as the one replying. Doesn't it need a serious answer and response too? Certainly not a personal attack either.

Do you suppose it could be because the questions aren’t really questions at all but a sly way of forming an assertion without evidence? Knowledgeable people usually see through this ruse and respond accordingly. If you have a question about a specific aspect of evolution that you don’t understand then ask it in the form and posture of a question. When you have your answer it will be a fact that you will have to judge the voracity of based on the evidence presented and the rationality of how it fits into the theory. Your opinion of the answer, however accurate it may be, is not ammunition for your own unsupported assertions. Asking a question that you already know has a controversial answer from a particular point of view is a debate and NOT a question and answer session.

 

[David M]

What an egotist you are. You judge a question based on your ego and supposed knowledge! Even if a thought question does that make it less legit since you apparently can't be bothered by what you think you are superior too.

vs

It seems so often on boards and discussions that people are attacked personally and totally ignored just because they come from a different side, idealism than oneself.

Do you see how funny this is?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Again the answers I get as usual are circular thinking. They are not an answer. If the answers you get are ok with you then so be it but I personally prefer more definitive answers. I will quote from a text book.

The sun and planets probably formed from aggregates of dust particles and debris about 4.6 billion yrs ago. Intense heat produced by gravitational energy and radioactivity of some atoms caused the earth to become stratified into a core, a mantle and a crust. Heavier atoms of iron and nickel became the molten liquid core, and dense silicate minerals became the semiliquid mantle. The lighter molecules of silico, aluminum, and iron formed the crust.

Probably is not a science answer, it is a guess. The rest of it is making an assumption of prior existence without explaining how it originally came to be. Where did the original energy come from and how. Look up how energy is made.

Rest of paragraph says this, The temperature was so hot that atoms could not permanently bind; whenever bonds formed, they were quickly broken. Cooling had to occur before an atmosphere could develop.

Again exactly where is the explanation as to how this occurred and notice it also said cooling had to occur before the atmosphere could develop. I want more info than that. That paragraph explains NOTHING to me.

What caused cooling and where did all original stuff come from and can this be reproduced in a lab to prove the statements.

Honestly this reads like an introduction and not the actual full scientific description. Are you being honest in saying this is high-school grade reading? In my high school [a Catholic one, in the 80's no less] we were calculating the mole weight of elements in suspension in science class.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This confuses me so I decided to ask. Does the fact that someone I totally disagree with on many subjects mean they can't ask a legitimate question that needs a serious answer? I dislike BO as prez as much as anyone could for so many reasons (not race). Does that mean, despite all that, he can't ask a good legitimate question that doesn't deserve an answer or reply?

Why I ask is this. It seems so often on boards and discussions that people are attacked personally and totally ignored just because they come from a different side, idealism than oneself. Thus they will totally disregard the question as if it can't be legitimate due to who ask it. I don't get this.

Why do both creationist and evolutionist act so often as if the other side can't ask a legitimate question so it is ignored or made fun of just because they are not on the same side as the one replying. Doesn't it need a serious answer and response too? Certainly not a personal attack either.

I will comment though on the gist of your complaint.

It is somewhat a unique situation, this fight between science and religion at this point in time and over these subjects [evolution and astrophysics]. It's unique, and you won't like this, because the anti science side finds itself in the unfortunate position of having absolutely, unequivocally, no leg to stand on.

The battle is essentially totally unfair, because the creationist side has no argument; they have no facts; and they propagate, deliberately, lies among their followers. Their arguments are specious and already debunked, yet, websites promote them as still being valid. You are a victim of a propaganda war, essentially. It is understandable in a sense, because without constantly underlining it a large portion of ones' religious basis could be in some kind of jeopardy if science is right. But these are the facts. You don't need to flush your beliefs over them; many do not. But the fervor is kept alive by fearful people via the internet, and you are encouraged to question question question, as if the question has not already been answered.

The question has already been answered. A huge portion of the life you enjoy in the technological West, is based on either or both of these two theories being absolutely true. You live the way you do thanks to these understandings. But you are told, commanded, to question them, by those whose livelihoods would be threatened if 'the truth is let out'. those people are charlatans, and they are lying to you.

the truth is already out.

Welcome to 2012 AD.