Will creationist attack geology and astronomy next?

[Rebiu]

(Trying to ignore the broken nature of that sentance.) Why should I say what I think when I know perfectly well what ecoli meant?

Because you statement did not clarify how he thought I misunderstood the creationist position.

Why question ecoli's being here?

Because I want to know why he repeatedly implies that his beliefs are none of my business when he is initiating the contact with me on the issue he refuses to discuss.

[ecoli]

It would not be appropriate to redress ecoli for tree's response.

 

Not that you'd have anything to redress, considering that his post was accurate and in-sync with my line of reasoning.

 

Therefore the dialogue between ecoli and I was disrupted. If tree had the courtesy to state his answer in terms of this is what he thought ecoli meant then I could smoothly engage tree in a dialogue on that meaning.

 

I don't consider the dialogue was disrupted. This is an open forum, anyone can chime in at any time they want to. The Tree was stating his answer in terms of what he thought was correct, which happened to be the same as my view.

 

Tree has been hounding several of my threads in this manner.

 

If you want the Tree to stop responding to your posts then stop making them.

 

I feel like this "controversy" has gone on for quite long enough.

 

I understand that you may have failed in you attempts to stand up to religious illogic but I stand up to these people so that other nonbelievers know they are not alone. What happens when nobody discusses these matters?

 

If you aren't at least tolerant of other people's beliefs then don't expect anyone to take your arguments seriously, or even respect you at all. There are plenty of atheists on SFN I get along perfectly well with. you know why? Because both parties recognize the possibility that the other is right, and we repect that difference. It leads to interesting and engaging debates that don't leave a bitter taste in the mouth. Until you accept this fact, then you won't be accepted here.

 

I understand that you may have failed in you attempts to stand up to religious illogic but I stand up to these people so that other nonbelievers know they are not alone. What happens when nobody discusses these matters?

 

When did I ever say I was certain why I was here? I believe in God because I don't not why I'm here, but I believe that He does.

 

And, did it occur to you that I didn't want to discuss these matters more fully because the topic is in no way related to the thread? That doesn't mean I'm "weak in my convictions" or anything.

[Phi for All]

If you are saying that any application of reason is a use of science then there is nothing we do that does not use or abuse science.

Any application? I try not to generalize.

If this is not what you are saying then how am I trying to use science to disprove anything?

This isn't an either/or situation. My post was perfectly clear. I read it several times before concluding that you're probably just a troll.

 

I understand that you may have failed in you attempts to stand up to religious illogic but I stand up to these people so that other nonbelievers know they are not alone.

You're mixing terminology and you really don't have a enough of a grasp of either side of this debate to make a good stand. What I've said (and you can read it in the stickies in the Evolution, Religion/Philosophy and Pseudoscience forums) is that it is futile to argue against faith-based religions using the tools of scientific method. It is not equipped to handle such arguments. It is not a weakness of science, any more than it would be a weakness for your computer not to be able to drive a nail into wood. Scientific method is the wrong tool to use. AND if you try, you give creationism an almost equal footing with science.

What happens when nobody discusses these matters?

If you showed any willingness to actually discuss rather than to preach, you would have found many more people interested in this thread. As it is, it's just you trying to preach to a choir and offending those who try to offer up a dissenting view (and I'm not talking about me).

Is it you position that people should not use this forum titled Religion?

Is this you being clever? Stick to glassblowing.

 

It is my position that you should not use this forum until you figure out how to post on controversial subjects without making a total ass of yourself. Any more trolling will incur warning points leading to a temporary ban.

[Rebiu]

Any application? I try not to generalize. This isn't an either/or situation. My post was perfectly clear. I read it several times before concluding that you're probably just a troll.

 

You're mixing terminology and you really don't have a enough of a grasp of either side of this debate to make a good stand. What I've said (and you can read it in the stickies in the Evolution' date=' Religion/Philosophy and Pseudoscience forums) is that it is futile to argue against faith-based religions using the tools of scientific method. It is not equipped to handle such arguments. It is not a weakness of science, any more than it would be a weakness for your computer not to be able to drive a nail into wood. Scientific method is the wrong tool to use. AND if you try, you give creationism an almost equal footing with science.If you showed any willingness to actually discuss rather than to preach, you would have found many more people interested in this thread. As it is, it's just you trying to preach to a choir and offending those who try to offer up a dissenting view (and I'm not talking about me). Is this you being clever? Stick to glassblowing.

 

It is my position that you should not use this forum until you figure out how to post on controversial subjects without making a total ass of yourself. Any more trolling will incur warning points leading to a temporary ban.[/quote']Well then I guess we have nothing more to say to each other.

[Rebiu]

Not that you'd have anything to redress' date=' considering that his post was accurate and in-sync with my line of reasoning.

 

 

 

I don't consider the dialogue was disrupted. This is an open forum, anyone can chime in at any time they want to. The Tree was stating his answer in terms of what he thought was correct, which happened to be the same as my view.

 

 

 

If you want the Tree to stop responding to your posts then stop making them.

 

I feel like this "controversy" has gone on for quite long enough.

 

 

 

If you aren't at least tolerant of other people's beliefs then don't expect anyone to take your arguments seriously, or even respect you at all. There are plenty of atheists on SFN I get along perfectly well with. you know why? Because both parties recognize the possibility that the other is right, and we repect that difference. It leads to interesting and engaging debates that don't leave a bitter taste in the mouth. Until you accept this fact, then you won't be accepted here.

 

 

 

When did I ever say I was certain why I was here? I believe in God because I don't not why I'm here, but I believe that He does.

 

And, did it occur to you that I didn't want to discuss these matters more fully because the topic is in no way related to the thread? That doesn't mean I'm "weak in my convictions" or anything.[/quote']Well said. My mistakes sorry for the misunderstanding. So now you can let this thread return to its origional subject.

[Rebiu]

Any application? I try not to generalize. This isn't an either/or situation. My post was perfectly clear. I read it several times before concluding that you're probably just a troll.

I am not using the scientific method in my disertations.

 

You're mixing terminology and you really don't have a enough of a grasp of either side of this debate to make a good stand. What I've said (and you can read it in the stickies in the Evolution' date=' Religion/Philosophy and Pseudoscience forums) is that it is futile to argue against faith-based religions using the tools of scientific method.[/quote']I am not using the scientific method in my disertations.

It is not equipped to handle such arguments. It is not a weakness of science, any more than it would be a weakness for your computer not to be able to drive a nail into wood. Scientific method is the wrong tool to use.

I am not using the scientific method in my disertations.

AND if you try' date=' you give creationism an almost equal footing with science.If you showed any willingness to actually discuss rather than to preach, you would have found many more people interested in this thread. As it is, it's just you trying to preach to a choir and offending those who try to offer up a dissenting view (and I'm not talking about me). Is this you being clever? Stick to glassblowing. [/quote']You are completely out of line dude.

 

It is my position that you should not use this forum until you figure out how to post on controversial subjects without making a total ass of yourself. Any more trolling will incur warning points leading to a temporary ban.

It is you that any rational person would ban for these comments you are making right now.

[Phi for All]

I am not using the scientific method in my disertations.I am not using the scientific method in my disertations. I am not using the scientific method in my disertations.You are completely out of line dude.It is you that any rational person would ban for these comments you are making right now.

The Admins may ban me for not banning you sooner.

[Rebiu]

The Admins may ban me for not banning you sooner.

Are you baiting me?

[ecoli]

Well said. My mistakes sorry for the misunderstanding. So now you can let this thread return to its origional subject.

 

Thank you, and I will... provided anybody wants to respond to it.

[Sayonara]

Are you baiting me?

You aren't doing yourself any favours by perpetuating this.

[patcalhoun]

Will creationist attack geology and astronomy next?

 

If you mean "attack" as in will either protest or advocate for alternative lesson plans in secondary school, what exactly can they target? Let's be honest, these guys have had a narrow minded focus on secondary school education; universities almost always get a free pass.

[sunspot]

Most people, both creationists and evolutionists forget that the bible's science (I say science loosely), is only a tiny fraction of the bible. A larger fraction is about ancient history and larger fraction is about human nature. The latter is the best part of the bible since much of it is still appropriate today.

 

I woud like to present a bible point that gets the goat of both the religious and the scientific communities, yet should be seen as a bridge. It is about the story of Cain and Abel. Cain is the tiller of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals. Cain kills Abel. This implies that farming supersedes nomadic herding. This is implicit of fixed higher human culture appearing because of the invention of farming.

 

When Cain is about to be sent away by God for the murder of Abel, Cain is afraid and says" whoever shall come upon me will kill me". The question becomes, who were these whoevers, if only Adam, Eve and Cain were the only three humans on the earth at that time. Adam and Eve wouldn't hurt Cain their only son. The answer, is consistent with science. The whoevers were the prehumans, who looked like humans (fossil evidence) but had not yet to reach the consciouis level of modern cultural sophisication. God feels sorry for Cain and gives Cain a sign for protection. This story is not too far from archeology evidence, where the first modern human culture appears very close to time predicted by the bible for Adam, Eve and Cain. (within a 1000 years).

[sunspot]

I would like to propose a follow up. The creation story of genesis had little to do with physical creation. What the bible is really talking about is the birth of human consciousness, "Let there be light". Think of it, animals are snooping for food and not looking at the stars or questioning the universe. But, about seven-eight thousand years ago, the prehumans went through a profound change, where all of a sudeen modern or sophisicated culture appears, requiring a more advanced human mind. Each day within genesis, new partial awareness of the world around appears, until Adam. He was the first modern human male (genetic mutation stabilized). His awareness of being separate from the mindless harmony of animal instinct creates loneliness due to his separation from prehuman instinct. He is all alone even in the company of others. Modern human female counsciousness then appears in the guise of Eve.

[Aardvark]

I woud like to present a bible point that gets the goat of both the religious and the scientific communities, yet should be seen as a bridge. It is about the story of Cain and Abel. Cain is the tiller of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals. Cain kills Abel. This implies that farming supersedes nomadic herding. This is implicit of fixed higher human culture appearing because of the invention of farming.

 

There is no reason for that story to 'get the goat' of anyone. It is well recognised in history that early myths and traditional folk memories can be surprisingly accurate in recalling information from the past, for instance the Odyssey and even stories of King Arthur have been substantively supported by archeological evidence. As such the idea that the Old Testament contains a large degree of historical information of the Israelities past is in no way controversial.

 

It is only when a mistaken link is made between recognising the story of Cain and Abel as an allergory of the clash between nomad and farmer (a historically supported view) and the literal interpretation of creation myths is made that peoples 'goat' can be got. The Bible can be used as a historical source (with great caution) but by it's own chronology it places the creation before the start of history. Therefore it is scientifically invalid as a source on that subject.

[gcol]

Rebiu: I take it you are not a creationist. If so, welcome to the club.

 

Have you considered that "scientific" creationists generally like to have their cake and eat it? They profess to believe it, yet they steadily chip away at its tenets with the scientific method. In effect, they are waging a war of managed retreat. The irony is, that if their scientific methods were to win, they would have proven their own belief to be in error. It is a "spoiling" war, one which they dare not win.

 

Creationist belief is a very broad church. If you question it in general terms, they will naturally gang up and fall on you like a ton of bricks. The reaction is pavlovian in its predictability.

 

Consider "divide and conquer" as a strategy. You might identify the different degrees of crationists and devise strategies to get them arguing amongst themselves, then quietly sit back and watch the blood flow. I can see the headline now "Civil war breaks out between creationists as they turn on each other, evolutionists called upon to broker a peace"