I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings

[River Jordan]

Would it be too much trouble for you to explain to me what you mean by that?

It seemed to me that on one hand you were saying Genesis was written to coincide with the knowledge level of the people at the time it was written, while at the same time saying that it's also written to inform us in our modern scientific age. Given the extreme disparity in the knowledge level between those two times, that doesn't seem consistent.

Firstly, you ignore the fact that God commanded the people to observe a six day working week based on the fact that he created the universe in six days, which is something he asserts in the verse I gave you.

Secondly, you give absolutely no scriptural evidence whatsoever that God did not create the universe in six literal days.

?????? I didn't ignore it, I specifically cited it as a reason for my interpretation. Here, let me say it again...

If my reading of Genesis 1 is that the use of a 7 day period is not about how long the creation of everything in the universe took but is instead a model for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath, then scripture later citing Genesis 1 as the example to follow for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath fits that very nicely.

And what are you looking for? A verse that says "And the Lord said, 'I didn't create the universe in six literal days'"?

I've explained why I read Genesis differently than you. The text itself IMO doesn't lend itself to six literal days (e.g., referring to a day, morning, and evening prior to the existence of the earth and the sun), which begs the question....why is it written the way it is? That's where the later passages about the 7 day week come in. Genesis 1 is a model for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath. Otherwise, why would God need to rest on the 7th day? Do you believe He was tired and really needed to rest?

For example, where does scripture ever use patterns or models that have undefined measurements?

In Genesis 1. A day, morning, and evening can't exist without an earth and sun.

So everyone is free to interpret scripture any old way they please?

If that is the case then how can scripture be used to correct anyone? All anyone needs to do in order to avoid scriptures they don't want to acknowledge is to say: "I don't interpret it that way", totally nullifying 2 Timothy 3:16.

What do you mean by that? Should there be laws against personal interpretations? If so, who's interpretation becomes the law of the land?

Do you think I, and everyone else who doesn't read Genesis as fundamentalists do, should be "rebuked"?

What I have pointed out several times in this discussion is that I am doing exactly what I am supposed to do when there are such disagreements. I examine the arguments being used by both parties and select the one that seems to have the best explanation for what the text says. I told you some time back that I was perfectly willing to accept the possibility that the theory of evolution and the Genesis account were compatible IF someone could give a reasonable interpretation that made sense and was consistent with the rest of the biblical account.

Sure, but what is "the best explanation" and "reasonable" to you is going to be different for other people. That's why it's subjective.

I've heard that kind of argument used many times before, but when I took the time to look at the quotes that theistic evolutionists and old-earthers use to support the idea that the idea of an old earth was not a recent one, all I could see were comments made by early Christians who were doing exactly what many do today - speculating on whether the days in Genesis could have been thousand year periods based on verses like 2 Peter 3:8. Take note however that what they were doing was at least based on scripture - not an attempt to squeeze millions of years into Genesis.

The amount of time they were considering isn't the point. The point is, the history of Christianity and Judaism clearly indicates that the way the Genesis creation accounts should be read is not a clear cut issue, as fundamentalists try and insist. Instead it's exactly as I've been describing....a subjective exercise with many nuances and no singular answer.

1) I haven't missed anything. You might have explained how you read it, but what you haven't done is explain in any particular detail why you read it the way you do.

2) Where does scripture indicate that the days in Genesis were not 24-hour days?

3) Why, if you think your objection really show that the days were 24-hours, do you simply ASSUME long periods of time? Why not microseconds?

1) Ok, so let's memorialize this....we both agree that I have indeed explained how I read the Genesis creation accounts. No need to claim otherwise.

2) When it refers to day, morning, and evening before the earth and sun existed.

3) Because God's creation clearly indicates long periods of time. I believe God's creation is another means of revelation.

And? All that really means is that people who believe that what the Bible says is true, believe that what the Bible says is true... so.. what's your point?

It means that the fundamentalist interpretation is not only not the only one out there, it's actually a minority view. That doesn't speak to its accuracy, but just to the fact that interpreting scripture is clearly a subjective exercise.

My concern is not simply for "people like you", even though I am truly deeply concerned for you too. I think the huge success that evolutionists have had in promoting evolution as a proven fact is giving people the wrong impression that the Bible has been disproven, is a myth, and so on. If they are led to believe things like that then it will definitely be a hinderance to their coming to faith.

Ah, now that's a very good point. In my experience working with youth, it's not "evolutionists giving people the impression that the Bible has been disproven", it's fundamentalists giving people the impression that if evolution and "billions of years" is true, then the Bible is worthless. In all my experiences with professors, scientists, and such, I never once heard any of them say anything about evolution of billions of years negating the Bible. Yet I hear that constantly from fundamentalist Christians.

So from where I sit, scientists aren't the problem. They're just going about their business, doing their daily work, and very rarely stepping into the public sphere and saying anything about the Bible (it's only a tiny minority of what I call "evangelical atheists" like R. Dawkins who do that). But oh man, go to a fundie church, website, forum, or whatever, and they'll go on and on and on about how terrible and untrustworthy scientists are, and how evolution and billions of years are absolutely incompatible with Christianity. Here's just a sampling of the quotes from this forum....

Remove the Genesis record of Creation and there is nothing left.

Genesis soon weeds out the believers from the non-believers.

to say that we evolved rules God out

You have 1 of 2 options. 1: Acknowledge that evolution has the timeline of mankind wrong and therefore the timeline of many prior wrong or 2. Acknowledge that the bible is wrong.

a christian would have to reject so many things Jesus even said to beleive in evolution

evolution however is of Satan because it causes doubt in Gods word

You either believe that Bible is a Word of God or you call God a liar there is no gray area there!

the sin of believing in evolution can be compared with some of the sin's the bible reports Israel held onto also

Evolution undermines the character of God and scripture

IMO, it's clear where the problem is.

But in any case I consider belief in evolution to be a slippery slope. It might not directly effect your salvation, but there is no way to measure the side effects it has on you, or the people around you.

Could you explain further? What's the slippery slope you're referring to?

Sure, no problem with that, but science can only "come in" when applied to things that are observable, repeatable and testable. If we go beyond that then what we are talking about is no longer science, but speculation.

And things like the history of life and the age of the earth fit that. That's why entire fields of science are built around those things. Surely you're not saying you know more than the people who actually do those things for a living?

Looked for what?

You stated, "no one has ever produced anything observable, repeatable or testable that contradicts the Genesis account." Assuming that you're referring to the young-earth creationist interpretation of the Genesis account, I'm asking where have you looked to see if such contradictory evidence is out there?

Firstly, science has limitations.

Secondly, no one knows how much information that is relevant to this issue that is missing. We only know what we know.

Thirdly, science is not infallible.

Forthly, there are things that scientists discover that defy reason, so even arguments that seem to be scientific and reasonable can be wrong.

Fifthly, contrary to common belief, we actually don't have any guarantee that everything within the realm of science advances.

That last point is interesting because it can be very deceptive depending on the circumstances. We assume that scince science is "self-correcting" that it almost automatically progresses towards the truth. But can we be sure of that? In order for that to be true then the "correction" must be correct.

In most cases it probably will be. But much of it depends on how much we know, contra how much we don't know.

In this discussion we have that problem. We can make assumptions about the past based on what we know, but we cannot make assumptions based on what we don't know.

I don't disagree with any of that.

I expected you to do what you said you would do and "go back through and pull up some quotes from you about scientists and/or their work?"

All you have here done is make a list of generalizations, and then make one yourself!!!

I still have the quotes from the fundamentalists here if you want to see them. But one thing you said earlier stood out to me. You stated, "I am not in a position to tell you what scientists should or shouldn't do". Does that sentiment apply to what you refer to as "origins"?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

It seemed to me that on one hand you were saying Genesis was written to coincide with the knowledge level of the people at the time it was written, while at the same time saying that it's also written to inform us in our modern scientific age. Given the extreme disparity in the knowledge level between those two times, that doesn't seem consistent.

Really, please back up your assertion so that I know exactly what you are referring to. You are being way to vague for me to respond to something like that. What "seems to you" might be a total missunderstanding, don't you agree? So how on earth am I supposed to know what you are talking about?

?????? I didn't ignore it, I specifically cited it as a reason for my interpretation. Here, let me say it again...

If you didn't ignore it then where did you specifically address it? I can't see it anywhere in anything you have posted. Please be specific.

Also, what exactly did you "cite" as a "reason for your interpetation"?

If my reading of Genesis 1 is that the use of a 7 day period is not about how long the creation of everything in the universe took but is instead a model for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath, then scripture later citing Genesis 1 as the example to follow for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath fits that very nicely.

You've already said that, so I am not sure why you are repeating it once more.

Firstly, it is a non sequitur. The fact that you assume, without any support,that Genesis 1 is not a 7 day period, does not make anything "fit nicely". How does it "fit"??? That's like saying that if a round peg isn't really round then its fits nicely into a square hole.

Secondly, you haven't given any support for why your "if" is true. All you have done is raise an easily refutable objection that presupposes that the use of the word day as a period of time cannot be used to refer to something that existed before a mechanism to measure that period existed, which is also a non sequitur! So why are you repeating this badly supported argument?

In Genesis 1. A day, morning, and evening can't exist without an earth and sun.

Yes they can, as I have pointed out.

Firstly, all three of these words can be ligitimately used as periods of time. You haven't provided anything to refute that, so your assertion that they "can't exist" is demonstrably wrong.

Secondly, you haven't given any alternative interpretation for what these words could possibly mean that is consistent with either scripture or science. Consequently, you have nothing to support any kind of interpretation other than a literal one.

What do you mean by that? Should there be laws against personal interpretations? If so, who's interpretation becomes the law of the land?

Did I say that there should be laws that crimintalize interpretations? Here we go with those rampant exaggerations again! Having a personal interpretation isn't necessarily a crime, but we are all responsible to work towards having an anderstanding of scripture that is correct. If God tells us that he is not the author of confusion and that his word can be used for correction then I don't think we should resort to inplying that the things that he has written are diffuse and undefinable.

Do you think I, and everyone else who doesn't read Genesis as fundamentalists do, should be "rebuked"?

Perhaps not, if they can produce sound scriptural arguments for what they assert and that their doctrine conforms to the gospel of Christ. But obviously, scripture DOES provide evidence that there are teachings and practices that DO need to be rebuked. Just as I pointed out, Paul wrote to Timothy about this:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

However, the ONLY way someone can be corrected and rebuked is if they acknowledge the divine authority of scripture. If some decide to abandon that authority and claim that scripture is simply a matter of interpretation then what are we left with? Any liberal Christian can claim that anything writen in the Bible is a matter of interpretation and there is NOTHING anyone else can do about it - UNTIL God calls us all to account.

Sure, but what is "the best explanation" and "reasonable" to you is going to be different for other people. That's why it's subjective.

Of course, that is why we have discussions like this. We have a responsibility to make sure that our thoughts and interpretations adhere to the truth. Simply declaring that there are different interpretations for the sake of argument is hardly what God intended for us to do. We always need to be honest with ourselves and with God and question whether or not we are using scripture to support our predefinded notions, or whether we are allowing it to correct us. Do you judge scripture? Or do you allow scripture to judge you? This is what scripture says about itself:

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

Does the word of God penetrate your heart? Or are you trying to penetrate the word of God so that it conforms to what you want it to say? Are you sitting in judgement about what the word of God says, or are you allowing it to judge you?

1) Ok, so let's memorialize this....we both agree that I have indeed explained how I read the Genesis creation accounts. No need to claim otherwise.

And neither have I done so. Have I?

2) When it refers to day, morning, and evening before the earth and sun existed.

OK.

3) Because God's creation clearly indicates long periods of time. I believe God's creation is another means of revelation.

Right. Here is where we have a problem. Where does "God's creation" indicate long periods of time? Someone assuming long periods of time is not the basis for how we should read scripture.

It means that the fundamentalist interpretation is not only not the only one out there, it's actually a minority view. That doesn't speak to its accuracy, but just to the fact that interpreting scripture is clearly a subjective exercise.

That still doesn't address the issue from a scriptural point of view. Christianity was the "minority view" at one time. It was called a "sect" by those of the "majority view". Now it has become the majority view, but is it what it originally was, or a watered down worldly powerless organization that flirts with the world? I'm sure we have differing views about that, but what you and I think doesn't matter and we can chalk it all down as a subjective exercise if you want, but my contention is that it is God's view that counts.

Ah, now that's a very good point. In my experience working with youth, it's not "evolutionists giving people the impression that the Bible has been disproven", it's fundamentalists giving people the impression that if evolution and "billions of years" is true, then the Bible is worthless. In all my experiences with professors, scientists, and such, I never once heard any of them say anything about evolution of billions of years negating the Bible. Yet I hear that constantly from fundamentalist Christians.

Again, you base your arguments on what "professors, scientists, and such" say rather than scripture. As far as scripture is concerned there is absolutely no support for interpreting what it says through the lenses of other people. I think you also need to get it through your head that scientists are nothing more than people whose field of expertise has to do with the physical world as we can observe it TODAY.

It seems to me that you are extending their field of expertise to include spiritual matters and things that lie BEYOND what we can observe. Now I have no problem acknowledging the fact that a scientist can be a Christian with a deep, spiritual knowledge of scripture, but before I allow myself to consider what a group of scientists consider "negates" scripture to be my guide, I would carefully consider what scripture says about these things, such as:

"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." (1 Cor 1:26-29)

So unless you can provide scripture that indicates that scientists, professors and so on are to be our guiding lights then I don't think you are arguing from a Christian perspective, but a worldly one.

So from where I sit, scientists aren't the problem. They're just going about their business, doing their daily work, and very rarely stepping into the public sphere and saying anything about the Bible (it's only a tiny minority of what I call "evangelical atheists" like R. Dawkins who do that). But oh man, go to a fundie church, website, forum, or whatever, and they'll go on and on and on about how terrible and untrustworthy scientists are, and how evolution and billions of years are absolutely incompatible with Christianity. Here's just a sampling of the quotes from this forum....

Exactly. Scientists are not the "problem". They are doing there jobs, which I think agrees with what I said previously. However, that does not mean that there isn't a problem, or that scientists are somehow exempt from deception in their daily jobs. This isn't a science problem, it is a human problem. And it also has roots in the spiritual realm. You are looking on the surface of things, but there is much more under the surface that we as Christians need to acknowledge. What scripture says is that:

"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

Is that a reality for you RJ, or is it also a matter of interpretation? If my own parents, who, on the surface, were "good", respectable people living normal lives, taking care of their kids and holding normal jobs were decieved by the "god of this world", then what makes you think that scientists can also be decieved? You have no answer for this, because the answer does not lie in anything apparant, but is subtle and hidden from view.

Remove the Genesis record of Creation and there is nothing left.

Genesis soon weeds out the believers from the non-believers.

to say that we evolved rules God out

You have 1 of 2 options. 1: Acknowledge that evolution has the timeline of mankind wrong and therefore the timeline of many prior wrong or 2. Acknowledge that the bible is wrong.

a christian would have to reject so many things Jesus even said to beleive in evolution

evolution however is of Satan because it causes doubt in Gods word

You either believe that Bible is a Word of God or you call God a liar there is no gray area there!

the sin of believing in evolution can be compared with some of the sin's the bible reports Israel held onto also

Evolution undermines the character of God and scripture

IMO, it's clear where the problem is.

I'm sure there are problems on both sides of the fence, but please, let's try to restrict this discussion to what you and I have said. Just as you cannot possibly be expected to defend what all other evolutionists say, I'm not here to defend what all other creationists say. Debates like these on a public forum always tend to be reduced to generalizations that probably require more than a one-liner to explain. That is why I try to take the time to explain what I mean, and even when I do it is not enough.

Could you explain further? What's the slippery slope you're referring to?

The slippery slope I'm referring to has to do with how we view scripture and what power it has. Christianity began with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, who was baptised in power, going around doing good, healing the sick and driving out demons. After he ascended the church was established and the apostles went around doing the same things as Jesus did, which is exactly what Jesus said they would do. The church was encouraged to believe in what the scriptures said and it was a powerful force because it given spiritual gifts to help it grow and yet remain in unity. However, the apostle Paul indicated that after he died, wolves would come in and cause divisions and teach heresies. That is what we have today. A watered down gospel and a bloated, powerless church. Remember what Paul wrote:

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." (1 Cor 1:17)

In other words, trying to mix scripture with worldly wisdom drains the cross of Christ of its power.

"And things like the history of life and the age of the earth fit that. That's why entire fields of science are built around those things. Surely you're not saying you know more than the people who actually do those things for a living?"

Really, what exactly do they "know"? I'm sure they know a lot, but whether or not they know what you think they know is a completely different story. And it is easy to make things "fit" when you ignore things that don't fit, or somehow figure out a theory to make them fit.

You stated, "no one has ever produced anything observable, repeatable or testable that contradicts the Genesis account." Assuming that you're referring to the young-earth creationist interpretation of the Genesis account, I'm asking where have you looked to see if such contradictory evidence is out there?

I have looked at the different arguments that proponents of evolution has given in support of their claims. I might not have the ability to understand every single argument used, but neither have you, I guess. And this is starting to remind me of the stuff you always seem to bump into on the internet. Someone asks you if you have read some 5000 page book about physics or something else like that and until you do you are ignorant. However, I do what most people do - I expect that IF there WAS an observable, repeatable and testable fact that contradicts Genesis then someone, by now, would have placed it on the table and the discussion would be over.

"I don't disagree with any of that."

I didn't think you would. However, you have many times pretended to be completely astonished by the fact that I adhere to the Genesis account, which I believed was inspired by God, rather than what scientists believe even though you admit that they could be wrong.

"I still have the quotes from the fundamentalists here if you want to see them."

Please read again what you wrote, this time emphasizing what this particular point is supposed to be all about:

"go back through and pull up some quotes from you about scientists and/or their work?"

"But one thing you said earlier stood out to me. You stated, "I am not in a position to tell you what scientists should or shouldn't do". Does that sentiment apply to what you refer to as "origins"?"

It has to do with everything. In a perfect world all scientists would believe, not only in Genesis, but in everything scripture says. We however, live in a fallen world where most people stagger around in blindness and don't care one bit about what scripture says. It would be pointless for me to say "this is what I think scientists should do".

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

It's extremely obvious that you and I are very, very different people with very different background and psychologies, and as a result we come at these issues from almost opposite mindsets. Again, I'm not here to try and convince you to change how you read scripture or to sway you towards my reading of scripture. I don't think that's appropriate, nor do I think it's even possible given our differences. I've explained my POV and you obviously don't find it at all persuasive. Honestly, I never expected otherwise. So with that said, I'm content to just acknowledge that you and I have different interpretations of the Genesis creation accounts, and leave it at that.

However (and you knew there'd be a however ), there are a couple of other items....

Here is where we have a problem. Where does "God's creation" indicate long periods of time? Someone assuming long periods of time is not the basis for how we should read scripture.

We've been over this e.g., the methodologies of radiometric dating, and you were unable to discuss it in any technical detail. So I'm curious why you feel you're qualified to declare such fields to be nothing more than "someone assuming long periods of time"?

This is my main concern here. Why do people like you feel so compelled to denigrate the work of scientists, even when you know almost nothing about what they actually do?

Again, you base your arguments on what "professors, scientists, and such" say rather than scripture.

I think you may have missed the point entirely. You stated, "I think the huge success that evolutionists have had in promoting evolution as a proven fact is giving people the wrong impression that the Bible has been disproven, is a myth, and so on". I responded by explaining that in my experiences, very, very, very few "evolutionists" (professors, scientists) say anything at all about the Bible, God, or anything spiritual. I followed that up by explaining that in my experience, the people who are doing the most shouting about evolution contradicting the Bible and even the existence of God are fundamentalist Christians, not "evolutionists".

So it had nothing to do with what you described. I'm simply noting that from where I sit, the argument "evolution contradicts scripture" is coming mostly from fundamentalists, not scientists.

It seems to me that you are extending their field of expertise to include spiritual matters and things that lie BEYOND what we can observe.

The only way I can see that is by believing that God's creation is a means of His revelation, and that science is the best method we have for studying His creation.

Scientists are not the "problem". They are doing there jobs, which I think agrees with what I said previously. However, that does not mean that there isn't a problem, or that scientists are somehow exempt from deception in their daily jobs. This isn't a science problem, it is a human problem. And it also has roots in the spiritual realm. You are looking on the surface of things, but there is much more under the surface that we as Christians need to acknowledge. What scripture says is that:

"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

Is that a reality for you RJ, or is it also a matter of interpretation?

I'll be honest with you....I see that as a convenient reflexive mechanism that allows people like you to wave away science that doesn't conform to your beliefs, without having to actually understand the science. I see this pattern over and over again. The results of radiometric dating contradict YEC? Well then those scientists must be under the influence of Satan, and merely assuming long periods of time! Done. No need to actually understand their methods or anything like that.

To me, that's childishly simplistic and intellectually lazy to an absurd degree. However, it is safe, simple, and provides emotional assurance.

In other words, trying to mix scripture with worldly wisdom drains the cross of Christ of its power.

Thanks for explaining. What you describe is familiar to me, in that I've heard similar things from other fundamentalists.

Really, what exactly do they "know"? I'm sure they know a lot, but whether or not they know what you think they know is a completely different story. And it is easy to make things "fit" when you ignore things that don't fit, or somehow figure out a theory to make them fit.

Here again you hint that scientists are up to no good and/or suck at their jobs. They're ignoring or manipulating things, either deliberately (up to no good), or unconsciously (suck at their jobs). What fascinates me is seeing someone who knows very little about the actual work of scientists saying such things.

The only reason I can figure why you...an obviously intelligent person...would do such a clearly absurd thing is what I described above.

I have looked at the different arguments that proponents of evolution has given in support of their claims.

Where?

It has to do with everything. In a perfect world all scientists would believe, not only in Genesis, but in everything scripture says. We however, live in a fallen world where most people stagger around in blindness and don't care one bit about what scripture says. It would be pointless for me to say "this is what I think scientists should do".

So your statement that you're not in a position to tell scientists what they should or shouldn't do wasn't related to your ability to speak to their work, but was instead about your belief that they wouldn't listen anyways because we live in a fallen world?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

We've been over this e.g., the methodologies of radiometric dating, and you were unable to discuss it in any technical detail. So I'm curious why you feel you're qualified to declare such fields to be nothing more than "someone assuming long periods of time"?

I do so for the reasons I gave above, to which you had no objection. When scientists apply radiometric dating to rocks all they can do is assume that they are aware off all the parameters involved.

Now shortly after you brought up this subject earlier on I admitted that I wasn't very good at physics. Despite that you threw out a formula that I could neither confirm nor refute. Tiring of this I suggested you go to the other forum, which you did, but once there you only discussed things related to genetics. After a while I asked you why you weren't discussing physics or geology, but you did not respond.

What gives?

This is my main concern here. Why do people like you feel so compelled to denigrate the work of scientists, even when you know almost nothing about what they actually do?

I haven't "denigrated the work of scientists". Where exactly did I do that? What I have done is point out the fact that they are just human beings, vulnerable to peer pressure, having a nature inclined towards evil just like the rest of us, and are not infallible.

I think you may have missed the point entirely. You stated, "I think the huge success that evolutionists have had in promoting evolution as a proven fact is giving people the wrong impression that the Bible has been disproven, is a myth, and so on". I responded by explaining that in my experiences, very, very, very few "evolutionists" (professors, scientists) say anything at all about the Bible, God, or anything spiritual. I followed that up by explaining that in my experience, the people who are doing the most shouting about evolution contradicting the Bible and even the existence of God are fundamentalist Christians, not "evolutionists".

So it had nothing to do with what you described. I'm simply noting that from where I sit, the argument "evolution contradicts scripture" is coming mostly from fundamentalists, not scientists.

I think the reason for that is obvious, which is something I think you made evident to a certain degree yourself when you started asking me questions like what I was afraid of, what I had to lose, and so on. Unless someone has faith in the truthfulness of scripture, why on earth would they bother "shouting"? People who do not believe in the Biblical account are not too concerned about whether or not what they have been taught about the age of the earth is correct. Sure, they would prefer to know the truth of the matter, but it is not something that they would affect their lives too much. So why would they shout anything? Shouting takes effort, and effort requires motivation. Who is motivated to question mainstream concensus? Who wants to be hung out as being anti-scientific for doing so?

Now you object to this and suggest that we do just as evolutionists do - not say anything about "the Bible, God, or anything spiritual", as though that was some kind of formula for filtering out religious thoughts and other worldviews from science, but you haven't given me any reason why we, as believers, one should be involved in something like that. Did God, who gave us the ability to conduct science, ever tell you that the correct way to do so was by excluding what he has to say in scripture from science?

Doubtlessly you are going to tell me that I'm mixing up scripture with science again, but the fact remains that using scripture as a foundation for how one interprets phenomenon in the natural world is ligitimate until someone proves that it isn't. I could just as easily claim that you are mixing up the concensus of the scientific community into science, because that is your foundation for how natural phenomenon should be interpreted.

The only way I can see that is by believing that God's creation is a means of His revelation, and that science is the best method we have for studying His creation.

As far as I can see, that is a philosophical argument, not a scriptural one. If God has the ability to give believers direct revelation about creation, why are you assuming that science is a better method of studying it? Sure, it is most likely the best method to satisfy most of our scientific needs, but whether or not it is the best method of studying everything, including things that go beyond the scope of observation, is nothing more than an assumption.

I'll be honest with you....I see that as a convenient reflexive mechanism that allows people like you to wave away science that doesn't conform to your beliefs, without having to actually understand the science. I see this pattern over and over again. The results of radiometric dating contradict YEC? Well then those scientists must be under the influence of Satan, and merely assuming long periods of time! Done. No need to actually understand their methods or anything like that.

To me, that's childishly simplistic and intellectually lazy to an absurd degree. However, it is safe, simple, and provides emotional assurance.

Well then, I'll be equally honest with you too, because I have constantly seen reflexive mechanisms from you too. Much of what you argue is based on the "so many scientists just cannot be wrong" kind of arguments. To me that is as intellectually lazy as anything else.

Everyone, to some degree, is guilty of sweeping things aside that don't fit with what they believe on a higher scale. Please, don't pretend that you are immune to doing that. I never entered the evo/creation debate by simply sweeping things aside. I try to take into consideration what is being said as far as I understand it and that is what I have been pointing out. Nowhere do I assert that scientists are wrong simply because they claim something that contradicts my worldview, but on the other hand I don't simply sit back an assume that they are right just because they are scientists.

Here again you hint that scientists are up to no good and/or suck at their jobs.
They're ignoring or manipulating things, either deliberately (up to no good), or unconsciously (suck at their jobs). What fascinates me is seeing someone who knows very little about the actual work of scientists saying such things.

And here you go again twisting and exaggerating. I never said that they suck at their jobs!

What you ignore is that much of their jobs revolve around interpreting data according to the paradigm they have been taught. If the data does not fit the paradigm then they can write it off as being a contamination, an anomily, or something like that and STILL be doing their jobs as they have been instructed.

Where?

Have you never heard of the internet?

So your statement that you're not in a position to tell scientists what they should or shouldn't do wasn't related to your ability to speak to their work, but was instead about your belief that they wouldn't listen anyways because we live in a fallen world?

No, my statement was just referring to the fact that we live in a world where evil exists and will continue to exist until Jesus returns and separates the weeds from the wheat. When the workers who were in the field were asked whether or not they should pull up the weeds they were told not to because they would just end up doing more damage than good. In other words, scince will continue to exist with all its strenghts and weaknesses and there isn't much we can do about that.

I have not been put here in order to make a perfect world and neither have you.

 

[River Jordan]

I do so for the reasons I gave above, to which you had no objection. When scientists apply radiometric dating to rocks all they can do is assume that they are aware off all the parameters involved.

But again, how do you know that "all they can do is assume"? I tried to explain to you this exact point (how certain things aren't assumed, but are deliberately tested) and you weren't able to understand enough to discuss it. Yet here you are, again declaring "all they can do is assume". See the problem?

Now shortly after you brought up this subject earlier on I admitted that I wasn't very good at physics. Despite that you threw out a formula that I could neither confirm nor refute. Tiring of this I suggested you go to the other forum, which you did, but once there you only discussed things related to genetics. After a while I asked you why you weren't discussing physics or geology, but you did not respond.

What gives?

Dude, as far as science goes that forum is awful....a total joke. One of the managers there even told me that it is a ministry, so why you referred me to that as a place to discuss science is a mystery.

I haven't "denigrated the work of scientists". Where exactly did I do that?

Well, let's see...

those who are involved in peer review are taught beforehand by others what "interpretation" is correct and which is incorrect

I am concerned for people who are being deceived by evolutionists.

there is a general attitude among many, yourself included, that the truth concerning origins is accesible through science

These kinds of things are never discussed openly in scientific journals because they don't fit in with the preferred paradigm

Uniformitarianism in its turn was popularized by Charles Lyell, who clearly had an anti-biblical, anti-christian agenda

The only reason that you claim it "looks" old is because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is.

scientists are not going to identify layers containing dinosaur fossils as being the same layer were human remains are found


What I say is that you are completely deceived and have no idea what you are talking about. As I have pointed out, "valid", today, is defined by what conforms to evolution.

I don't care what you have done. You have already been programmed to accept what is "valid" and what is "invalid"

You base your beliefs on what fallible men have spoon-fed you

Oh, you mean the "scientific journals" that reject any supernatural explanations for anything, including your OWN beliefs? Sure! Anything that doesn't conform to evolution is ATTACKED, not accepted into journals.


IMO, the theme there is abundantly clear.

BTW, in general what do you do for a living?

People who do not believe in the Biblical account are not too concerned about whether or not what they have been taught about the age of the earth is correct. Sure, they would prefer to know the truth of the matter, but it is not something that they would affect their lives too much. So why would they shout anything? Shouting takes effort, and effort requires motivation. Who is motivated to question mainstream concensus? Who wants to be hung out as being anti-scientific for doing so?

Seriously? You're basically once again saying that I and others like me are just blindly accepting what we're being told as true, without bothering to investigate if it's accurate.....despite the outrageously obvious fact that between the two of us, I'm far, far, far more knowledgeable about the actual science!

Do you understand how bizarre that is? Two people....one who has studied and investigated the subject, including the methods that serve as the basis for various conclusions, and another who hasn't and can't discuss the subject in any detail....and it's the ignorant person making accusations about others of "not being too concerned" about being correct?

Wow.

Now you object to this and suggest that we do just as evolutionists do - not say anything about "the Bible, God, or anything spiritual", as though that was some kind of formula for filtering out religious thoughts and other worldviews from science,

No, I'm saying something else entirely. I'm saying that if your position on this issue is first and foremost based on your reading of scripture, then stick to that and stop trying to argue from a scientific perspective. If your position was actually based on the science, you would be able to discuss it in some detail, but you obviously can't.....and that's fine by itself. The problem comes in when for whatever reason you say things about science like what I copied above.

Doubtlessly you are going to tell me that I'm mixing up scripture with science again, but the fact remains that using scripture as a foundation for how one interprets phenomenon in the natural world is ligitimate until someone proves that it isn't.

If you would just stick to "interpreting phenomena in the natural world", that'd be fine. But for whatever reason, you feel compelled to make sweeping declarations about scientists and their work, even though you've never actually studied their work.

As far as I can see, that is a philosophical argument, not a scriptural one. If God has the ability to give believers direct revelation about creation, why are you assuming that science is a better method of studying it?

Of course it's a philosophical argument. But I think science has proven itself to be a pretty reliable means of teasing truth out of our existence, don't you?

Well then, I'll be equally honest with you too, because I have constantly seen reflexive mechanisms from you too. Much of what you argue is based on the "so many scientists just cannot be wrong" kind of arguments. To me that is as intellectually lazy as anything else.

Except I've never said that at all, and have explicitly said the opposite (that they could be wrong and I'd love to be the one who proves it). Other than that....

Nowhere do I assert that scientists are wrong simply because they claim something that contradicts my worldview, but on the other hand I don't simply sit back an assume that they are right just because they are scientists.

So then on what basis do you conclude that they're in error? If it's not based on your worldview and not based on a thorough and objective study of their work (if it was, you'd be able to discuss it in detail).....what is your conclusion based on?

And here you go again twisting and exaggerating. I never said that they suck at their jobs!

What you ignore is that much of their jobs revolve around interpreting data according to the paradigm they have been taught. If the data does not fit the paradigm then they can write it off as being a contamination, an anomily, or something like that and STILL be doing their jobs as they have been instructed.

The fact that you don't see any difference between "they're blindly writing things off because they're simply following what they've been taught" and "they suck at their jobs" is baffling.

Have you never heard of the internet?

Why is it every time I ask you what you've studied/investigated/looked at/etc., you get evasive? IMO, the more evasive you get the more it looks like you're avoiding the truth, i.e., that you haven't studied hardly anything from science. That explains both your evasiveness and your inability to discuss the subjects in any depth.

 

[KingJ]

Do you understand how bizarre that is? Two people....one who has studied and investigated the subject, including the methods that serve as the basis for various conclusions, and another who hasn't and can't discuss the subject in any detail....and it's the ignorant person making accusations about others of "not being too concerned" about being correct?

No, I'm saying something else entirely. I'm saying that if your position on this issue is first and foremost based on your reading of scripture, then stick to that and stop trying to argue from a scientific perspective. If your position was actually based on the science, you would be able to discuss it in some detail, but you obviously can't.....and that's fine by itself. The problem comes in when for whatever reason you say things about science like what I copied above.

Why is it every time I ask you what you've studied/investigated/looked at/etc., you get evasive? IMO, the more evasive you get the more it looks like you're avoiding the truth, i.e., that you haven't studied hardly anything from science. That explains both your evasiveness and your inability to discuss the subjects in any depth.

River, God has placed you in this field to serve Him. Not to take the little knowledge you have and come lay the smackdown on bible believing Christians.

You, more then any of us should be speaking nicely. I baby, those who don't grasp things in my field.

What was the reason you joined this site? Come bully / persuade Christians that a discussion been had since 600bc is now beyond doubt fact that we must accept....which you grasped after you received your ...degree?

Humans do not come from apes. You do not need any qualification to know that ^_^. Just as 2+2=5 = false. Even if I blur it a bit (2+2-1+5-3+8-11) + (2+3+9+2-5-9) = 5 = false.

I can accept that evolution is the best answer ungodly scientists can provide...and that is exactly where it should stay. For a Christian to now jump in their belief camp... :blink:. ....at the cost of urinating on all scripture.... :blink:. Make no sense to me. Me being someone who knows Jesus as Lord and respects scripture. Just as I would my wedding ring in a marriage! Now what would you say of me if I didn't respect that ring?
When you make claims that you have actually seen mutation take place according to evolutionary natural selection / algorythms...that is nothing more then me saying the....the '2+3+9 in my bracket = 14', therefore 2+2 = 5. No matter how you blur it or move the goal posts, anyone believing a frog becomes a prince is mad, fullstop. ^_^

 

[UppsalaDragby]

But again, how do you know that "all they can do is assume"? I tried to explain to you this exact point (how certain things aren't assumed, but are deliberately tested) and you weren't able to understand enough to discuss it. Yet here you are, again declaring "all they can do is assume". See the problem?

I already answered that question.

Dude, as far as science goes that forum is awful....a total joke. One of the managers there even told me that it is a ministry, so why you referred me to that as a place to discuss science is a mystery.

Calling a forum a ministry does not disqualify it from being a place where science is discussed.

IMO, the theme there is abundantly clear.

BTW, in general what do you do for a living?

What part of the above are you submitting as evidence that I am denigrating scientists any more than anyone else?

Seriously? You're basically once again saying that I and others like me are just blindly accepting what we're being told as true, without bothering to investigate if it's accurate.....despite the outrageously obvious fact that between the two of us, I'm far, far, far more knowledgeable about the actual science!

Do you understand how bizarre that is? Two people....one who has studied and investigated the subject, including the methods that serve as the basis for various conclusions, and another who hasn't and can't discuss the subject in any detail....and it's the ignorant person making accusations about others of "not being too concerned" about being correct?

OK River Jordan, let's put this to the test. How did you investigate whether or not abiogenesis is "accurate"? How did you investigate whether or not all life stemmed from a common ancestor or created as separate kinds? Now you can boast about having superior knowledge all you want, but the points of contention in this debate lie beyond the scope of science.

Now you continuously try to suggest that what scientists conclude is based in objective observation, so please, right here and now, provide the objective evidence that supports the idea that life originated from non-life. Where is it?

So if that idea is being published around the world as being a scientific conclusion when ALL the evidence points to the opposite, then what exactly is stopping scientists from doing the same thing with other things?

No, I'm saying something else entirely. I'm saying that if your position on this issue is first and foremost based on your reading of scripture, then stick to that and stop trying to argue from a scientific perspective. If your position was actually based on the science, you would be able to discuss it in some detail, but you obviously can't.....and that's fine by itself. The problem comes in when for whatever reason you say things about science like what I copied above.

You seem to be assuming here that basing one's position on scripture and arguing from a scientific perspective are mutually incompatible. What exactly are you basing that assumption on?

If you would just stick to "interpreting phenomena in the natural world", that'd be fine. But for whatever reason, you feel compelled to make sweeping declarations about scientists and their work, even though you've never actually studied their work.

My "sweeping statements" are based on the fallibility of mankind, not the work of scientists. And you even admit that scientists are fallible, so what's your point?

Of course it's a philosophical argument. But I think science has proven itself to be a pretty reliable means of teasing truth out of our existence, don't you?

Sure, it is "pretty reliable", but the further one moves from empirical observation towards conjecture the less reliable it gets.

So then on what basis do you conclude that they're in error? If it's not based on your worldview and not based on a thorough and objective study of their work (if it was, you'd be able to discuss it in detail).....what is your conclusion based on?

Please read the text you quoted! I can't see how you got from "Nowhere do I assert that scientists are wrong" to claiming that I have concluded that they are!

I believe that they are wrong based on the Biblical account, and because of the fact that much of what they claim is disputable and obviously is beyond our ability to observe.

The fact that you don't see any difference between "they're blindly writing things off because they're simply following what they've been taught" and "they suck at their jobs" is baffling.

What??? Neither of those quotes were made by me! Please stop twisting my words!

Why is it every time I ask you what you've studied/investigated/looked at/etc., you get evasive? IMO, the more evasive you get the more it looks like you're avoiding the truth, i.e., that you haven't studied hardly anything from science. That explains both your evasiveness and your inability to discuss the subjects in any depth.

Where was I evasive??? Now you are going way too far again. We discussed this matter weeks back and here you are again back to you old tricks. Please be HONEST!

 

[Raeneske]

Not a single notion in Scriptures is given that God did not create us, but created one (or multiple beings) and pushed them forward in evolution. It is by faith we understand that God made the worlds. It is by faith that we know that God created mankind upon the 6th Day of Creation week.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It says made by him and that we were formed from the dust of the ground. Not pushed towards evolution, not led in a direction of animal ascendency, but made by him. By Christ all things were created. Evolution detracts from God's creative power, denying that He indeed created the world in six days, and rested upon the 7th Day, and set it apart for holy use. Yes, six days. Not thousands of years, or millions or even billions. It took God six days. That's all it took to create the earth, the sea, the fountains of waters, and all that in them is.

Evolution is a denial of the creation week, and is a denial of the law of God. Destroy creation week, and you destroy the law, for in the heart of the law is found the commandment, pointing to God as our Creator and commanding us to rest as God did upon the seventh day of the week.

Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I warn you, do not argue science against the Scriptures because you may eventually be found standing upon the wrong side. I urge you, accept the Word of God for what it says. The Word of God says God is the Creator of Heaven, and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is. An angel in revelation even calls our attention to this fact found in the fourth commandment.

Revelation 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Make no mistake that this angels message is spread in our time. Could it be that this is directed at those who believe in evolution as well? We are created. We have no evolved. Worship Him that made the heave and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

 

[River Jordan]

River, God has placed you in this field to serve Him. Not to take the little knowledge you have and come lay the smackdown on bible believing Christians.

If "Bible believing Christians" (fundamentalists) are running around making false statements about things like science, shouldn't they be corrected? Aren't we supposed to be truthful in everything we do?

What was the reason you joined this site? Come bully / persuade Christians that a discussion been had since 600bc is now beyond doubt fact that we must accept....which you grasped after you received your ...degree?

I've posted my intent here several times. I'm done repeating it.

Humans do not come from apes. You do not need any qualification to know that ^_^. Just as 2+2=5 = false. Even if I blur it a bit (2+2-1+5-3+8-11) + (2+3+9+2-5-9) = 5 = false.

Exhibit A

I can accept that evolution is the best answer ungodly scientists can provide...and that is exactly where it should stay. For a Christian to now jump in their belief camp... :blink:. ....at the cost of urinating on all scripture.... :blink:. Make no sense to me. Me being someone who knows Jesus as Lord and respects scripture. Just as I would my wedding ring in a marriage! Now what would you say of me if I didn't respect that ring?

I understand that's what you believe. I'm not trying to change that at all.

When you make claims that you have actually seen mutation take place according to evolutionary natural selection / algorythms...that is nothing more then me saying the....the '2+3+9 in my bracket = 14', therefore 2+2 = 5. No matter how you blur it or move the goal posts, anyone believing a frog becomes a prince is mad, fullstop. ^_^

So you think I'm lying?

Calling a forum a ministry does not disqualify it from being a place where science is discussed.

"I don't know enough about physics to discuss geochemistry methods. Why don't you go over to a Christian ministry message board and discuss it there?"

Yeah, that makes total sense.

What part of the above are you submitting as evidence that I am denigrating scientists any more than anyone else?

When you start referring specifically to CPA's, airline pilots, plumbers, etc. in the same way, let me know. Again, what generally do you do for a living?

OK River Jordan, let's put this to the test. How did you investigate whether or not abiogenesis is "accurate"? How did you investigate whether or not all life stemmed from a common ancestor or created as separate kinds? Now you can boast about having superior knowledge all you want, but the points of contention in this debate lie beyond the scope of science. Now you continuously try to suggest that what scientists conclude is based in objective observation, so please, right here and now, provide the objective evidence that supports the idea that life originated from non-life. Where is it?

Bizarre. I've stated multiple times that the origin of life on earth remains a mystery.

You seem to be assuming here that basing one's position on scripture and arguing from a scientific perspective are mutually incompatible. What exactly are you basing that assumption on?

No, I'm asking....why are you trying to argue against so much of the earth and life sciences from a scientific perspective, when you know very, very little about them?

My "sweeping statements" are based on the fallibility of mankind, not the work of scientists. And you even admit that scientists are fallible, so what's your point?

Nope, sorry. It doesn't look that way at all. It looks very much like you are focused on scientists and their work.

I believe that they are wrong based on the Biblical account,

Then why not stop there?

and because of the fact that much of what they claim is disputable

How do you know? You obviously haven't undertaken a thorough and objective study of the science, so on what basis can you claim it as "fact" that the work of scientists is "disputable"?

and obviously is beyond our ability to observe.

So? Are you arguing that if we don't actually witness an event happen, we can't draw any conclusion about it?

What??? Neither of those quotes were made by me! Please stop twisting my words!

Man but you're frustrating to talk to. You said, "...much of their jobs revolve around interpreting data according to the paradigm they have been taught. If the data does not fit the paradigm then they can write it off as being a contamination, an anomily, or something like that". I paraphrased that to "they're blindly writing things off because they're simply following what they've been taught". Does that not capture your intent?

Where was I evasive??? Now you are going way too far again. We discussed this matter weeks back and here you are again back to you old tricks. Please be HONEST!

I've been asking you what you've studied, looked into, read, etc. on this subject, and all you've told me is "both sides", "all sides", "who said I studied anything", and now "the internet".

An honest person operating in good faith would either say "I've read these books, taken these courses, and/or attended these conferences" or "I haven't really studied anything from science related to this subject", rather than give childish answers as you have.

 

[KingJ]

If "Bible believing Christians" (fundamentalists) are running around making false statements about things like science, shouldn't they be corrected? Aren't we supposed to be truthful in everything we do?

If "Bible believing Christians" (liberalists) are running around making false statements about scripture, shouldn't they be corrected? Aren't we supposed to be truthful in everything we do? God is not dishonest...unlike the devil in the world . Christianity 101 = Jesus is truth John 14:6, Jesus is one with His word John 1:1.

I've posted my intent here several times. I'm done repeating it.
Exhibit A

Have you given thought to why this is repeatedly asked of you?

I understand that's what you believe. I'm not trying to change that at all.

So you would not respect your wedding ring? Take it off at a party? Throw the bible away at an evolution seminar?

So you think I'm lying?

Of course not. If any of us thought you were lying we wouldn't be speaking to you. Though the insinuation is made plenty times, so I can forgive you for thinking that.

Sometimes we see a little evidence and allow our emotions and others to brainwash us. Eating a candy bar, becomes swallowing a cactus. Don't beat yourself up though, it happens to many who study theology too.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

"I don't know enough about physics to discuss geochemistry methods. Why don't you go over to a Christian ministry message board and discuss it there?"

Yeah, that makes total sense.

It does make sense if you take into the consideration that it is a message board that is dedicated to the subject at hand! Christianityboard is a general forum for Christians. The only reason I can see that you prefer to post here is because you think the prey is easier and more prone to be impressed by your "superior" knowledge.

When you start referring specifically to CPA's, airline pilots, plumbers, etc. in the same way, let me know.

Why would I start referring to CPA's, airline pilots, plumbers, etc, when the subject being discussed is evolution???

Again, what generally do you do for a living?

I work as an IT Consultant.

Bizarre. I've stated multiple times that the origin of life on earth remains a mystery.

Bizarre??? River, this is what you said:

"You're basically once again saying that I and others like me are just blindly accepting what we're being told as true, without bothering to investigate if it's accurate....."

All I was doing is testing that claim. You believe that evolution is true based on the fact that you have investigated it, but I cannot see how you can make that claim when it concerns the things we have been discussing here - abiogenesis, common descent, and so on.

No, I'm asking....why are you trying to argue against so much of the earth and life sciences from a scientific perspective, when you know very, very little about them?

For the reasons I have already given.

Nope, sorry. It doesn't look that way at all. It looks very much like you are focused on scientists and their work.

Well I beg to differ and I call you to task to prove that claim. We are discussing both the work of scientists as well as the fallibility of mankind. That makes it easy for you to distort the issues and claim that I am "singling out" scientists and criticizing their work rather than pointing out things that relate to human nature. What you are doing is dishonest. You exaggerate things in an attempt to portray me as an anti-science nut who distrusts everything within the realm of science. That's not what I am doing, but if you really think you have a case against me then just put it on the table.

Then why not stop there?

Stop what?

How do you know? You obviously haven't undertaken a thorough and objective study of the science, so on what basis can you claim it as "fact" that the work of scientists is "disputable"?

If it wasn't disputable then there wouldn't be any disputes, would there???

So? Are you arguing that if we don't actually witness an event happen, we can't draw any conclusion about it?

Did I say that we couldn't???

Man but you're frustrating to talk to. You said, "...much of their jobs revolve around interpreting data according to the paradigm they have been taught. If the data does not fit the paradigm then they can write it off as being a contamination, an anomily, or something like that". I paraphrased that to "they're blindly writing things off because they're simply following what they've been taught". Does that not capture your intent?

The problem is this subject is enormous and nuanced, and when it suits you you try to reduce it to something simple just for the sake of winning a point in a debate. And you that that I'M frustrating to talk to!!! Someone who has the time and ability to investigate all things and who knows all things does not blindly accept anything. Do you know of such a person? For the rest of us, we ALL suffer a form of "blindness" in that we are forced to accept things on the authority of others. Despite that you have the audacity to misquote me and imply that I am saying that scientist "blindly" accept things as though they don't have critical minds! Try to get a balanced view of what I am saying RJ, instead of trying to use all these tiresome tactics.

I've been asking you what you've studied, looked into, read, etc. on this subject, and all you've told me is "both sides", "all sides", "who said I studied anything", and now "the internet".

As I CLEARLY pointed out, I never used the word "studied" - a word I avioded in case it gave the false impression that I have any kind of degree in the sciences. Despite that you provided a quote that you claimed was "word for word" what I had said and called me evasive when what I was trying to do was to get you to own up to your blunder! I then finally got you to admit some of the other blunders you made and decided to leave it at that and move the discussion along.

Now you call me evasive again! Why? On what grounds?

An honest person operating in good faith would either say "I've read these books, taken these courses, and/or attended these conferences" or "I haven't really studied anything from science related to this subject", rather than give childish answers as you have.

That shows exactly how narrow-mindedly you are approaching this. What makes you think that the ONLY way to gain an understanding of the truth in this matter is through reading books, taking courses or going to conferences? The problem with these activities is that they all filter through the understanding and perspectives of another human being. The deeper you subscribe to someone else's teachings the more likely you are to inherit possible flaws somewhere along the line.
I prefer to boil things down to simpler truths, weigh them up in my mind and rely on God through the power of revelation to help me understand what is based on truth, and what is not. So I have done EXACTLY as I said I had done. I look at the arguments used on both sides of the debate and see what seems to be the most reasonable.

I don't read books written by evolutionists and I don't read books written by creationists. I look at what is being discussed and I slowly try to build up an understanding based on that. I am more careful with "knowledge" than most people. After all "knowledge puffs up" and in many cases it can do more damage than good, especially if one overestimates the value and incorruptibility of that knowledge. You can continue to lull yourself into the conviction that the knowledge you have acquired during your studies justifies your boasting, but I will also continue to make God, and the scriptures he has given us, to be the primary source of truth for me.

 

[River Jordan]

If "Bible believing Christians" (liberalists) are running around making false statements about scripture, shouldn't they be corrected? Aren't we supposed to be truthful in everything we do? God is not dishonest...unlike the devil in the world . Christianity 101 = Jesus is truth John 14:6, Jesus is one with His word John 1:1.

Of course. And once again, you dodged the question. If fundamentalists are running around making false statements, should they be corrected?

Have you given thought to why this is repeatedly asked of you?

Yep. IMO, it's because people like you are not here to listen to anything people like me have to say. You're here to preach at me, yell at me, and accuse me of all sorts of wrongdoings. That much is abundantly evident in your posts to me.

So you would not respect your wedding ring? Take it off at a party? Throw the bible away at an evolution seminar?

Sorry, you're not making any sense.

Of course not. If any of us thought you were lying we wouldn't be speaking to you. Though the insinuation is made plenty times, so I can forgive you for thinking that.

Sometimes we see a little evidence and allow our emotions and others to brainwash us. Eating a candy bar, becomes swallowing a cactus. Don't beat yourself up though, it happens to many who study theology too.

So how is it you know more about me and my experiences than I do?

It does make sense if you take into the consideration that it is a message board that is dedicated to the subject at hand! Christianityboard is a general forum for Christians. The only reason I can see that you prefer to post here is because you think the prey is easier and more prone to be impressed by your "superior" knowledge.

No, the manager there specifically told me it is a Christian ministry site. Do you honestly think a Christian ministry message board is the best place to discuss the methods of geochemistry? Why not a physics forum? Maybe even a Reddit about geochemistry? Of course the problem there is, if you were to visit a site like that, everyone there would both be far more knowledgeable on the subject and tell you that your arguments are wrong and simplisticly ignorant.

It reminds me of this....

An Evening with RATE

"I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-earth geochronologists in the world."

And the reason I quit posting there should be obvious. In my short time there, a pattern repeated itself 3 separate times....I would post an explanation of some part of evolutionary biology, someone would respond, I would respond to that, they would leave the thread, and then in another thread they or someone else would declare victory, usually in an extremely childish way. I was actually PM'd by a couple of people telling me that I was likely to be banned because I was being effective, and that the forum has a history of arbitrarily banning "evolutionists" while at the same time allowing creationists to name-call and generally act like jerks (which I witnessed first-hand).

That, plus the constant questioning of my faith, was enough to make me conclude that the place was a waste of my time. I showed one of the threads to a colleague of mine and he just shook his head and asked me "Why do you subject yourself to such stupidity?"

Why would I start referring to CPA's, airline pilots, plumbers, etc, when the subject being discussed is evolution???

Why aren't there any Christian ministry websites and message boards dedicated to claiming that CPA's, airline pilots, plumbers, etc. are all fallible men who are trying to bypass God? Funny how fundamentalists expend so much of their resources on just scientists and their work.

I work as an IT Consultant.

So let's see....if someone said all this to you...

those who are involved in IT are taught beforehand by others what "interpretation" is correct and which is incorrect

I am concerned for people who are being deceived by IT consultants.

there is a general attitude among many, yourself included, that the truth concerning networks is accessible through IT

These kinds of things are never discussed openly in IT circles because they don't fit in with the preferred paradigm.

What human beings assume is obviously your guiding light, and with that you think you can dictate to me what the server is doing.

IT consultants are not going to identify hardware/software conflicts as being a problem

The only reason that you claim the network "looks" functional is because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is.

Actually no, it has nothing to do with how well IT consultants do their jobs, it is a spiritual thing that concerns global deception at the end of the age. Paul clearly predicted that destructive heresies would infiltrate the church after he departed, and despite that people like you just keep on pointing out that there are Christians who believe in Active Directory.

Computer networking in its turn was popularized by Ray Noorda, who clearly had an anti-biblical, anti-christian agenda

All you are doing is allowing those who believe in computer networking to interpret the data for you and calling it "IT"

Well you could have said that you believe computer networking and no matter what the Bible says you will believe in what man says anyway.

Oh, you mean the "IT consultants" who reject any supernatural explanations for anything, including your OWN beliefs? Sure! Anything that doesn't conform to network design theory is ATTACKED, not accepted.

What I say is that you are completely deceived and have no idea what you are talking about. As I have pointed out, "valid", today, is defined by what conforms to "mainstream IT management".

I don't care what you have done. You have already been programmed to accept what is "valid" and what is "invalid"

You base your beliefs on what fallible men have spoon-fed you

....yet:

1) in further discussions, this person clearly demonstrated (and even admitted at times) that she knew very, very little about IT;

2) referred you to a Christian ministry message board as a good place to discuss IT;

3) when you asked her what she's studied, looked into, or investigated about IT, she answered "both sides", "all sides", "I never said I studied anything", and "the internet"....

...what would your impression of this person be? Would you think she had a positive or negative opinion of IT? Would you value her input into IT matters? Would you think, "Now here's a person who has reached sound conclusions on IT based on a good understanding of the subject"?

Bizarre??? River, this is what you said:

"You're basically once again saying that I and others like me are just blindly accepting what we're being told as true, without bothering to investigate if it's accurate....."

All I was doing is testing that claim. You believe that evolution is true based on the fact that you have investigated it, but I cannot see how you can make that claim when it concerns the things we have been discussing here - abiogenesis, common descent, and so on.

Except for the fact that I've said from Day 1 here, that the origin of the first life forms remains a mystery. I've never once claimed that any origins scenario is "true". That you focused on that issue is what's bizarre.

For the reasons I have already given.

Nope, you haven't answered this question. Why do you try and argue against the work of scientists from a scientific perspective, when you know very, very little about it?

How is that any different than someone who knows almost nothing about IT saying all the things above about your work?

Well I beg to differ and I call you to task to prove that claim. We are discussing both the work of scientists as well as the fallibility of mankind. That makes it easy for you to distort the issues and claim that I am "singling out" scientists and criticizing their work rather than pointing out things that relate to human nature. What you are doing is dishonest. You exaggerate things in an attempt to portray me as an anti-science nut who distrusts everything within the realm of science. That's not what I am doing, but if you really think you have a case against me then just put it on the table.

Your posts here speak for themselves. Arguing that geochemists merely "assume" important aspects of their work when you can't even understand their methods, claiming that scientists like me are just believing what we've been "spoon fed", claiming that we've been "programmed what to accept is valid", childishly mocking the work of paleontologists who find a dinosaur footprint or fossil....

If you honestly think any scientist would read through your posts and not come away concluding that you are an anti-science fundamentalist Christian, then perhaps you have some deeper issues. Just look at the short list of statements above about your work. Would someone who is pro-IT say those things?

Stop what?

Why not just defend/justify your YEC fundamentalist beliefs via scripture, rather than taking that next step and trying to argue the science (unless you actually bother to study the science first).

If it wasn't disputable then there wouldn't be any disputes, would there???

There are people with qualifications who dispute the heliocentric model of our solar system or even the shape of the earth. Does that mean it's "disputable" that the earth is a sphere that orbits the sun?

Did I say that we couldn't???

Yes or no....can we draw conclusions about events that no one witnessed?

The problem is this subject is enormous and nuanced, and when it suits you you try to reduce it to something simple just for the sake of winning a point in a debate. And you that that I'M frustrating to talk to!!! Someone who has the time and ability to investigate all things and who knows all things does not blindly accept anything. Do you know of such a person? For the rest of us, we ALL suffer a form of "blindness" in that we are forced to accept things on the authority of others. Despite that you have the audacity to misquote me and imply that I am saying that scientist "blindly" accept things as though they don't have critical minds! Try to get a balanced view of what I am saying RJ, instead of trying to use all these tiresome tactics.

So you have no problem with...

Much of IT consultants' jobs revolve around interpreting data according to the paradigm they have been taught. If the data does not fit the paradigm then they can write it off as being a contamination, an anomaly, or something like that.

If you don't see that as a criticism, do you tell your clients that up front?

As I CLEARLY pointed out, I never used the word "studied" - a word I avioded in case it gave the false impression that I have any kind of degree in the sciences. Despite that you provided a quote that you claimed was "word for word" what I had said and called me evasive when what I was trying to do was to get you to own up to your blunder! I then finally got you to admit some of the other blunders you made and decided to leave it at that and move the discussion along.

Now you call me evasive again! Why? On what grounds?

Whether you "studied" or "looked into" both sides of the issue (and you still haven't even said what "issue" you were talking about) is irrelevant. The point is, despite weeks and months of multiple people asking you what specifically you "looked into", all you've given is evasive answers like "both sides", "all sides", and "the internet".

IOW, no matter how many times and in how many different ways we've asked you what specifically you've "looked into", you won't tell us. That's the definition of "evasive".

If you were in court and the prosecutor asked you: You claimed to have looked into 'both sides of the issue'. Can you specify what you looked into and what sides you were referring to?

"Both sides"

Please specify what you looked into and what sides you were referring to.

"All sides"

At that point, the judge would tell you to either answer the question or be in contempt, and everyone on the jury would figure you were hiding something.

Upssala: That shows exactly how narrow-mindedly you are approaching this. What makes you think that the ONLY way to gain an understanding of the truth in this matter is through reading books, taking courses or going to conferences? The problem with these activities is that they all filter through the understanding and perspectives of another human being. The deeper you subscribe to someone else's teachings the more likely you are to inherit possible flaws somewhere along the line.

Those are just examples I threw out to try and get you to answer.

Uppsala: I prefer to boil things down to simpler truths, weigh them up in my mind and rely on God through the power of revelation to help me understand what is based on truth, and what is not. So I have done EXACTLY as I said I had done. I look at the arguments used on both sides of the debate and see what seems to be the most reasonable.

Here we go again....

What specifically are "both sides of the debate"?

Uppsala: I don't read books written by evolutionists and I don't read books written by creationists. I look at what is being discussed and I slowly try to build up an understanding based on that.

Where specifically do you look at "what is being discussed"?

Uppsala: I will also continue to make God, and the scriptures he has given us, to be the primary source of truth for me.

While apparently trying to also argue against the work of scientists, even though you know almost nothing about it.

 

[aspen]

are literalists the only Bible believing Christians out there? Seems to me that the Bible contains many layers of truth. Also, did Jesus tell us to go forth and weed out all believers who do not agree with you? Nope, Jesus was inclusive.

Jordan, this is continued from my 'i am worried' thread. I have been thinking a lot about fundamentalism and narcissism - seems to me they have a lot in common. When counseling someone who is narcissistic or antisocial (commonly occuring together) it is important not to confront them too directly because they have no self esteem - no matter how teempting it may be, pantsing the narcissist is always counterproductive. Seems to me that you have made your point and are only causing damage. No offense, i have enjoyed your posts.

 

[KingJ]

1. Of course. And once again, you dodged the question. If fundamentalists are running around making false statements, should they be corrected?


2. Yep. IMO, it's because people like you are not here to listen to anything people like me have to say. You're here to preach at me, yell at me, and accuse me of all sorts of wrongdoings. That much is abundantly evident in your posts to me.

3. So how is it you know more about me and my experiences than I do?\

1. Correction of anyone is on a sliding scale of importance. Evolution is up there with the worst. The issue is....what is the 'truth' against which we pass correction? On the one hand we have human wisdom (which involves the fantasy of frogs becoming princes).... on the other hand...we have God's inspired word.

2. I am dealing with you like I would like someone dealing with me, if I believed as you do. You are clinging so hard to your beliefs. Sprinkling fairy dust on you like you want me to, will not help. You are in hospital, not at a party Prov 27:6.

3. I am interested in learning how your 'experiences' influenced your belief. All I need grasp for my statement is.....fascinating minor mutation (exciting / tasty candy bar) = flatworm becoming a human over 550 millions years from evil, terrible, vicious, disgusting, inhumane natural selection (Cactus / fairytale).

 

[River Jordan]

1. Correction of anyone is on a sliding scale of importance. Evolution is up there with the worst. The issue is....what is the 'truth' against which we pass correction? On the one hand we have human wisdom (which involves the fantasy of frogs becoming princes).... on the other hand...we have God's inspired word.

We also have the reality that is God's creation.

2. I am dealing with you like I would like someone dealing with me, if I believed as you do. You are clinging so hard to your beliefs. Sprinkling fairy dust on you like you want me to, will not help. You are in hospital, not at a party Prov 27:6.

That's pretty sad.

3. I am interested in learning how your 'experiences' influenced your belief. All I need grasp for my statement is.....fascinating minor mutation (exciting / tasty candy bar) = flatworm becoming a human over 550 millions years from evil, terrible, vicious, disgusting, inhumane natural selection (Cactus / fairytale).

So how do you know that's all there is to my conclusions about evolution?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

No, the manager there specifically told me it is a Christian ministry site. Do you honestly think a Christian ministry message board is the best place to discuss the methods of geochemistry? Why not a physics forum? Maybe even a Reddit about geochemistry? Of course the problem there is, if you were to visit a site like that, everyone there would both be far more knowledgeable on the subject and tell you that your arguments are wrong and simplisticly ignorant.

It reminds me of this....

An Evening with RATE

"I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-earth geochronologists in the world."

And the reason I quit posting there should be obvious. In my short time there, a pattern repeated itself 3 separate times....I would post an explanation of some part of evolutionary biology, someone would respond, I would respond to that, they would leave the thread, and then in another thread they or someone else would declare victory, usually in an extremely childish way. I was actually PM'd by a couple of people telling me that I was likely to be banned because I was being effective, and that the forum has a history of arbitrarily banning "evolutionists" while at the same time allowing creationists to name-call and generally act like jerks (which I witnessed first-hand).

That, plus the constant questioning of my faith, was enough to make me conclude that the place was a waste of my time. I showed one of the threads to a colleague of mine and he just shook his head and asked me "Why do you subject yourself to such stupidity?"

Firstly, you haven't told me why a Christian ministry site dedicated to issues concerning this debate isn't a good place to discuss science. Simply suggesting that having a worldview or a ministry is a basis for disqualification in this debate is nothing more than a form of ad-hominum attack.

Secondly, you claim that the fact that you stopped posting there had something to do with childish behaviour and that people were questioning your faith. I find that hypocritical coming from someone who, from my perspecive, is even more childish and who has been constantly bellyaching HERE about people questioning your faith. So why are you still here then?

And do you think I care the least whether or not one of your "totally objective" friends shakes his head??? Oh PLEASE!!

Why aren't there any Christian ministry websites and message boards dedicated to claiming that CPA's, airline pilots, plumbers, etc. are all fallible men who are trying to bypass God? Funny how fundamentalists expend so much of their resources on just scientists and their work.

Oh! People who criticize evolution are childish you say?? My oh my... What on earth do you think that an argument like that is? It is so incredibly silly that it is hardly worth responding to. Which of those occupations has any significance to Christianity? The issues in this debate are conjectural, not things you use to drain water from metal pipes or modes of transport that everyone has a concrete benefit of using. You are the one being infantile in these discussions, so don't poke your finger at anyone else.

So let's see....if someone said all this to you...

those who are involved in IT are taught beforehand by others what "interpretation" is correct and which is incorrect

I am concerned for people who are being deceived by IT consultants.

there is a general attitude among many, yourself included, that the truth concerning networks is accessible through IT

These kinds of things are never discussed openly in IT circles because they don't fit in with the preferred paradigm.

What human beings assume is obviously your guiding light, and with that you think you can dictate to me what the server is doing.

IT consultants are not going to identify hardware/software conflicts as being a problem

The only reason that you claim the network "looks" functional is because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is.

Actually no, it has nothing to do with how well IT consultants do their jobs, it is a spiritual thing that concerns global deception at the end of the age. Paul clearly predicted that destructive heresies would infiltrate the church after he departed, and despite that people like you just keep on pointing out that there are Christians who believe in Active Directory.

Computer networking in its turn was popularized by Ray Noorda, who clearly had an anti-biblical, anti-christian agenda

All you are doing is allowing those who believe in computer networking to interpret the data for you and calling it "IT"

Well you could have said that you believe computer networking and no matter what the Bible says you will believe in what man says anyway.

Oh, you mean the "IT consultants" who reject any supernatural explanations for anything, including your OWN beliefs? Sure! Anything that doesn't conform to network design theory is ATTACKED, not accepted.

What I say is that you are completely deceived and have no idea what you are talking about. As I have pointed out, "valid", today, is defined by what conforms to "mainstream IT management".

I don't care what you have done. You have already been programmed to accept what is "valid" and what is "invalid"

You base your beliefs on what fallible men have spoon-fed you

....yet:

1) in further discussions, this person clearly demonstrated (and even admitted at times) that she knew very, very little about IT;

2) referred you to a Christian ministry message board as a good place to discuss IT;

3) when you asked her what she's studied, looked into, or investigated about IT, she answered "both sides", "all sides", "I never said I studied anything", and "the internet"....

...what would your impression of this person be? Would you think she had a positive or negative opinion of IT? Would you value her input into IT matters? Would you think, "Now here's a person who has reached sound conclusions on IT based on a good understanding of the subject"?

I'm not even going to bother too much with such a silly rant based on a false analogy. Are you trying to claim that software development is a profession that is open to as much conjecture as evolution is? Unless it has escaped your attention RJ, software development is JUST AS PRONE TO ERROR AS ANYTHING ELSE!!!!!

Except for the fact that I've said from Day 1 here, that the origin of the first life forms remains a mystery. I've never once claimed that any origins scenario is "true". That you focused on that issue is what's bizarre.

Oh, something else that you claim is "bizarre"! What I am "focussing" on are the issues at hand! It isn't me who is trying to kick up a big smoke-screen by discussing other things such as software development, plumbing, airline pilots and so on. YOU claim that you base your beliefs in this discussion on the fact that you have investigated them, and yet when I put it to the test you then turn around and claim that it is a "mystery".

Nope, you haven't answered this question. Why do you try and argue against the work of scientists from a scientific perspective, when you know very, very little about it?

Yep, I have answered the question. I listed some of the things concerning science that can limit its reliability. You agreed that the things I listed were valid. Beyond that I don't think I have said anything to "argue against the work of scientists".

How is that any different than someone who knows almost nothing about IT saying all the things above about your work?

A person does not need to know that much about IT to know that software is susceptible to all kinds of problems!

Your posts here speak for themselves. Arguing that geochemists merely "assume" important aspects of their work when you can't even understand their methods, claiming that scientists like me are just believing what we've been "spoon fed", claiming that we've been "programmed what to accept is valid", childishly mocking the work of paleontologists who find a dinosaur footprint or fossil....

If you honestly think any scientist would read through your posts and not come away concluding that you are an anti-science fundamentalist Christian, then perhaps you have some deeper issues. Just look at the short list of statements above about your work. Would someone who is pro-IT say those things?

If my posts "speak for themselves" then why do YOU feel you need to constantly misquote, distort and exaggerate my points? YOU agree that scientists are not infallible, and yet when I say something like that you twist it around as though I was saying that they suck at their work, and you just keep on like this hoping no one is going to notice! That is dishonest!

Why not just defend/justify your YEC fundamentalist beliefs via scripture, rather than taking that next step and trying to argue the science (unless you actually bother to study the science first).

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Where exactly have I made any claims that go beyond my knowledge of science?

Yes or no....can we draw conclusions about events that no one witnessed?

Yes, sure, we can probably draw SOME conclusions. What's your point?

So you have no problem with...

Much of IT consultants' jobs revolve around interpreting data according to the paradigm they have been taught. If the data does not fit the paradigm then they can write it off as being a contamination, an anomaly, or something like that.

If you don't see that as a criticism, do you tell your clients that up front?

What theoretical model in computer science are you referring to?

Whether you "studied" or "looked into" both sides of the issue (and you still haven't even said what "issue" you were talking about) is irrelevant. The point is, despite weeks and months of multiple people asking you what specifically you "looked into", all you've given is evasive answers like "both sides", "all sides", and "the internet".

IOW, no matter how many times and in how many different ways we've asked you what specifically you've "looked into", you won't tell us. That's the definition of "evasive".

If you were in court and the prosecutor asked you: You claimed to have looked into 'both sides of the issue'. Can you specify what you looked into and what sides you were referring to?

"Both sides"

Please specify what you looked into and what sides you were referring to.

"All sides"

At that point, the judge would tell you to either answer the question or be in contempt, and everyone on the jury would figure you were hiding something.


Upssala: That shows exactly how narrow-mindedly you are approaching this. What makes you think that the ONLY way to gain an understanding of the truth in this matter is through reading books, taking courses or going to conferences? The problem with these activities is that they all filter through the understanding and perspectives of another human being. The deeper you subscribe to someone else's teachings the more likely you are to inherit possible flaws somewhere along the line.

Those are just examples I threw out to try and get you to answer.

Uppsala: I prefer to boil things down to simpler truths, weigh them up in my mind and rely on God through the power of revelation to help me understand what is based on truth, and what is not. So I have done EXACTLY as I said I had done. I look at the arguments used on both sides of the debate and see what seems to be the most reasonable.

Here we go again....

What specifically are "both sides of the debate"?

Uppsala: I don't read books written by evolutionists and I don't read books written by creationists. I look at what is being discussed and I slowly try to build up an understanding based on that.

Where specifically do you look at "what is being discussed"?

Uppsala: I will also continue to make God, and the scriptures he has given us, to be the primary source of truth for me.

While apparently trying to also argue against the work of scientists, even though you know almost nothing about it.

When I mentioned sides I was talking about the TWO sides of the debate - between creationism and evolution. I take it that your misquote led others to believe that I was speaking about some kind of specialized field that I had been studying.

So don't blame me for YOUR blunder!!

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

You referred me to that forum as a good place to discuss science, after you were unable to discuss geochemistry methods in any detail at all. I gave three reasons why I found that forum to be anything but a good place to discuss science: 1) the pattern of creationists leaving threads and childishly declaring victory in another thread, 2) several people there were more interested in questioning my faith than discussing science, and 3) the manager reminding me that the site was primarily a Christian ministry site (plus the PM's I received).

Maybe there's a decent Christian ministry message board out there that's a good place to discuss science, but that place sure isn't it.

So I'm curious....since you're so interested in this issue, would you be interested in joining a message board specifically geared towards evolutionary biology and is populated by some actual scientists?

As far as why fundamentalists Christians have dedicated untold dollars and time to attacking science, I think the reason is self-evident and I believe your behaviors reflect that. So your attempt to argue that you're not singling scientists out.....well, I don't know why you even tried to make such an absurd argument.

Where exactly have I made any claims that go beyond my knowledge of science?

Well let's see....that would be everything you've said about radiometric dating, geochronology, geology, and paleontology since I've been here. You're pretty good at throwing out YEC talking points (radiometric dating merely assumes, Mt. St. Helens deposition is relevant to lake varves, conflating geologists and "evolutionists", finding a dino fossil is embarrassing). I think it's pretty clear that your knowledge of those fields of study is pretty low.

When I mentioned sides I was talking about the TWO sides of the debate - between creationism and evolution.

Ok, so what from the evolution side did you look into?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

are literalists the only Bible believing Christians out there? Seems to me that the Bible contains many layers of truth. Also, did Jesus tell us to go forth and weed out all believers who do not agree with you? Nope, Jesus was inclusive.

Jordan, this is continued from my 'i am worried' thread. I have been thinking a lot about fundamentalism and narcissism - seems to me they have a lot in common. When counseling someone who is narcissistic or antisocial (commonly occuring together) it is important not to confront them too directly because they have no self esteem - no matter how teempting it may be, pantsing the narcissist is always counterproductive. Seems to me that you have made your point and are only causing damage. No offense, i have enjoyed your posts.

I find nothing more narcissist than one's presumption that science is on their side, that anyone who disagrees with them is against science and to be whisked away with dismissive titles such as "fundamentalists". The claim that anyone who disagrees with you has "no self esteem" (your words) only compounds the skew with which you view dissenters from your unassailable dogmas. With such a narrow view of people who don't conform to your world view, and with such a shameless inclination to condescension, I don't see how you actually help anyone as a counselor.

You make the all too common mistake of throwing around words like "narcissist", a term which you don't half understand yourself, and apply a clinical diagnosis to patients you haven't even interviewed. You certainly bolster the common perception that there's nobody more insane than those who take upon themselves the exclusive right to determine who's insane and do so with undisciplined frivolity.

I feel sorry for your patients. They could do far better.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

You referred me to that forum as a good place to discuss science, after you were unable to discuss geochemistry methods in any detail at all. I gave three reasons why I found that forum to be anything but a good place to discuss science: 1) the pattern of creationists leaving threads and childishly declaring victory in another thread, 2) several people there were more interested in questioning my faith than discussing science, and 3) the manager reminding me that the site was primarily a Christian ministry site (plus the PM's I received).

Obviously these are only excuses (just like the ones you made earlier on and then retracted) that you are making for the sake of justifying your leaving that forum. These kinds of things occur in ANY Christian forum, including this one, so, I repeat my question: why are you still here if the above points are grounds for leaving?

I think the answer is obvious.

Maybe there's a decent Christian ministry message board out there that's a good place to discuss science, but that place sure isn't it.

Gee, to me that sounds a lot like going from one forum to another and declaring victory!

Oh, and by the way, how often did the nasty members at evolutionfairytale jump from thread to thread feigning victory?

Please provide some links so that I can look into this myself.

So I'm curious....since you're so interested in this issue, would you be interested in joining a message board specifically geared towards evolutionary biology and is populated by some actual scientists?

Hehe.. nice try. I'm not a biologist, so it would be a huge disadvantage for me to join such a board. Besides, what exactly within biology do you think can resolve this issue for me? The points of interest in this discussion lie beyond the reach of biologists. If you disagree River Jordan, then be my guest and show me what empirical evidence within biology that any bird was previously a reptile, or that life came from non-life, or that humans decended from any ape-like creature, or that common descent should be considered a fact.

As far as why fundamentalists Christians have dedicated untold dollars and time to attacking science, I think the reason is self-evident and I believe your behaviors reflect that.

As I pointed out, which you conveniently ignored, evolutionists and creationists work on different models. If you can't accept that then why don't YOU account for the untold dollars and time that evolutionists have spent attacking science, if you consider that a theoretical paradigm is "science"?

So your attempt to argue that you're not singling scientists out.....well, I don't know why you even tried to make such an absurd argument.

And once again, you are quite free to back up your absurd comment with quotes rather than empty, deceptive rhetoric.

Well let's see....that would be everything you've said about radiometric dating, geochronology, geology, and paleontology since I've been here. You're pretty good at throwing out YEC talking points (radiometric dating merely assumes, Mt. St. Helens deposition is relevant to lake varves, conflating geologists and "evolutionists", finding a dino fossil is embarrassing). I think it's pretty clear that your knowledge of those fields of study is pretty low.

More fellacious points that I have to correct.

Firstly, I gave you a list of things that YOU agreed to and which show that radiometric dating IS based on assumption.

Secondly, I never made the claim that the Mt. St. Helens was relevant to lake varves.

Thirdly, YOU claimed to have observed lake varves that show seasonal patterns, which actually shows how YOU went beyond your knowledge of science!

Oh the IRONY!!!

Forthly, I never conflated geologists and evolutionists. That one I consider to be a flat out lie.

And what you mean by "finding a dino fossil is embarrassing" is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain?

Ok, so what from the evolution side did you look into?

What, am I supposed to give you an account for everthing I have read, and all the vidoes I have seen for the past 15 years or so? Get real! This is just a time wasting rehash of the same question you have been asking for weeks! You have ALREADY repeatedly insulted me by claiming that my knowledge of sciences is poor, even though you haven't specifically pointed out what I need to know that has relevance to origins, so what exactly is your point in all this? I have asked you this very question REPEATEDLY, and yet YOU claim that I am evasive!!! Stop playing games here!

 

[aspen]

Sounds like you are only interested in winning, UD.....why should it matter if you are at a disadvantage on a science website if you are just there to share ideas? the reason jordan has to be careful about discussion evolution or any other scientific area of study on a Christian board is because she could easily get banned. that usually doesnt happened to Christians on a science based site.
Vale, Im not sure where you got the idea that I believe science is 'on my side'. Perhaps if you had been around for the past month you would know that i do not defend evolution or creationism - I think the debate is rather ridiculous. Evolution is an area of science and Creationism is an area in religion. IMO, the evidence for evolution is compelling, but it is far from airtight. Creationism is a misinterpretation of ancient, inspired literature.

As far as reframing my comment about a lack of self esteem - it has nothing to do with agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I was speaking about people who have narcisissistic traits (it is not a disorder, btw) - one of the hallmarks of someone who has narcissistic traits is low self esteem. As i mentioned to Jordan, confronting people with these traits is counterproductive because they are incapable of seeing any other POV other than their own.

Narcissistic traits have to do with personality, not sanity. i have not diagnosed anyone.

Finally, since you are confusing narcissistic traits with a disorder and sanity, it is clear how you mistake Creationism with science and evolution with religion.