Jump to content

Isaiah 6:8

Royal Member
  • Posts

    3,633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Isaiah 6:8

  1. Fair enough, I will restrain. I was just a bit irritated by the accusations that evolutionists try to push an atheist agenda (which would imply that the rest of science does that, too). Ciao - viole Where was this ever made in this thread? This was never posted, and you came in and made an issue of something that was not said.
  2. Sorry I do not have the energy to retype the huge reply earlier, but I would be in staunch disagreement on this last comment. If you mean Cosmology, creation of the universe stuff, then yes, however regular astronomy, such and such object is at such and such place and behaves in such and such manner, is not under debate, at least that I know of.
  3. I actually moved all the posts related to the nationality issue to get this thread back on track.
  4. Well, I copied an extract from the BioLogos website since the NPR article quoted BioLogos for the story. My intention was to show that the allegedly biased article wasn't misquoting its sources, since that's indeed what BioLogos says. Other than that, I don't think your definition of bias is particularly useful. If an entity that expresses a POV one way or the other automatically means that the entity is biased in favor of its opinion, it'd be impossible to find unbiased stories anywhere. I'm not defending BioLogos here since I've never heard of them before, I just think that you need a stronger basis before accusing them of deliberate bias. They could be biased... but then again, they might just be less willing to discard scientific evidence than other theists, since genetics does indeed demonstrate that having the entire human race as we know it spawn from only one male-female pair is quite impossible. NPR Chooses what stories to run, If a story fits there bias they will run it. That simple. Again it quoted a biased story from a website that had a clear bias on what they presented, as I read through the site. Again I'll get back to your full long post later, as well as D-9 I am only doing short replies as I did a long one and lost the whole thing and I am to tired right now to start again with the in depth replies.
  5. The comment made was not that it was hard to discern but that they were indistinguishable from each other. and so the thread does not get off topic, I will link back to the other thread where this is under discussion. http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index.php?/topic/146535-recognition-of-differential-physical-characteristics-of-nationalities/
  6. Well, Isaiah, given how theism is a belief, I don't quite see how any theistic websites can possibly be unbiased. You're right that the site is biased, of course, but that's pretty much a given for anything regarding theism, so I wonder what pointing out the obvious is meant to achieve. Theistic creationist websites are equally biased as well, and I say that without trying to attach a positive or negative connotation to the term out of recognition that it's an unavoidable fact. I mean that that website has a bias to prove that Evolution and Christianity work together, and quoting a biased website to prove that what the website says is true does not work. It would be like saying quoting a Dog lovers website saying that cats lovers were in declined. You would not belive it because the source was biased. Viole even admitted she thought she was quoting an unbiased source. That was the point.
  7. What you said among other things, trying to make this about Science disproving God. Not about the subject at had for I started this debate with a theistic evolutionist, who sees a way to make both fit together. This thread has nothing to do with atheism. You tried to make it so. Case in point. Viole you are making this thread about the existence of God or not, and are bringing in lot of other fields, matter of fact this thread is about biological evolution, and I have kept it to that in respect of D-9 who this thread was opened for. So please keep on topic on this one.
  8. NPR is not a good source of info. They have a bias, and it leans against what Christianity teaches. I used to listen to the station for years as they do have a nice jazz/classical music they play but outside of that, they are very, very biased. oops, sorry. To be honest, I did not have a clue about npr. Just had a look at the web site and looked pretty neutral. Ciao - viole I know, its an American thing, there bias is very strong, so strong as they fired someone that was not liberal enough, but very liberal anyway.
  9. Ah yes a Theistic Evolutionist website. They have a bias, so it is a biased article placed on a biased website, and Viole does not live in the states so I know that she does not or did not know that NPR had a bias.
  10. Unless, of course, scientists who say that the rate of atom's decay and the speed of light are constant, are also pushing an atheistic agenda Isn't that strange that many unrelated findings of science seem to push an atheistic agenda? What is more likely: that all scientists are conspiring to prove that God does not exist, or that what they independently find collides with theistic teachings? Ciao - viole Viole, This is not about a "God vs Atheism" thread. Its about evolution, so unless you have something to say with the topic, can you please not try to derail? thanks.
  11. NPR is not a good source of info. They have a bias, and it leans against what Christianity teaches. I used to listen to the station for years as they do have a nice jazz/classical music they play but outside of that, they are very, very biased.
  12. I think it may be a browser issue. I have had the opposite problem. Double posting. Yes, however, I belive that the facts support it, however I do not see the facts as proving it to be so. As in the scientific method theories can be disproved rather then proved. so as not to reinvent the wheel, the above mentioned sexual reproduction is one of the gaps, that I have a big problem with because knowing how hard for it to be for humans to reproduce if something is just slightly off (My wife and I remain childless after 8 years) I cannot fathom it happening by chance and slowly over time. I will agree with that about all science, this is why I would as a child read encyclopedias for fun. Well I was not exactly clear about the term faith, I did not mean it in a religious context. More of a "Faith that it works" You can have faith in a person with out it being religious, and you can have faith that an idea will work, however this is not religious, but again its a feeling none the less. I see people lead by there emotions all the time. I will agree with you on this. I have seen both creationists and evolutionists do this. I have called both on it at times. Again as I have posted before, here is my take in a nutshell from another thread. I edited the wording as in the original thread someone pointed out a weakness in my wording so I attended to it. and Thus the question that states "How did we get here" is turned into "How did we get here with/without outside intervention" outside intervention is either ruled out completely or is the center of the whole deal. Either way we do not get untainted results. I have been guilty of this. Therefore. Since neither is based on science since both are tainted by expected results, we are left with faith in either of the two. Now you can debate what the evidence means but I have yet to see any true objective debate on what any given piece of evidence means, as both sides have an agenda. Since none of the data we have, is imperial, beyond subjective interpretation we are left with faith and logic. Logic is not be pure science as it can be subjective. However I belive that its the best thing we have in this case, as we have no hard evidence.
  13. Apples and Oranges. The Japanese did not have a "Racial Purity Science" that they used. The Nazis did however and it worked against them. What I stated did indeed happen. It was a different situation in China. Matter of fact one of the only hero's of the rape of Dan king was a German Nazi diplomat. Also not everyone who "Blended in" was a traitor, they did the bare minimum they needed to survive and then worked to help others escape. So no this is not about traitors, the Japanese were not gassing thousands of Chinese people in an attempt to make a master race. This argument does not hold. Nope, pure ignorance is one of never really facing a situation before, and having no knowledge of how to handle it. Again, it is a different viewpoint on the same evidence. You do not belive it address the problem, they belive it does, its a "he said she said" battle and yet no one on either side is willing to really look into the other side and say "Hmm they may be right" Actually the agree there is data, but they do not belive that the data shows what you say it shows. Its like this picture. do you see an old lady or a young lady? Well its one set of data that can be interpreted two ways. They acknowledge what evolutionists are speaking of and then say they disagree with the conclusion they came to. No one wants to stop to try to see if it is something from other side. BOTH are party to this. Yet I have not seen any. Sure I have seen mountains of facts, but they are all filtered through a world view, and are all tainted ether by creationism or evolution. Nothing objective have I seen that stands alone and proclaims one way or the other. All I see is a pile of old/young women paintings and not a single one of just one or the other. Well yes and no however this is getting off topic but I shall simplify. Either life evolved, or was created by some being somewhere. That could be the God of the Bible or any other god from other religions, or aliens. You see yes I stand by biblical creation of course, however I think its still evolution or creation at the core. Did you even read my thread about the scientific method? I linked to it and I am to tired to do so again. Yes I do not think that either evolution or creation line up in it as they are not objective. yes I understand that. However again I keep seeing people say , well we don't know how it happens, but it did happen somehow over millions of years of mutations. I challenge you to watch any program on the discovery channel or the like about evolution, and notice when they say words like, "We think, We speculate, it must have or" etc followed by some sort of "it happened over millions of years" again much speculation, little science. Actually this is a huge hole in evolution. Tell me how is it possible, for working reproductive organs to simultaneously sprout in equal but opposite fashion and then work perfectly to continue the species. You see the whole idea of that fly's in the face of "Millions of years" It can not happen, there are no real explanations of this. Not one. Just guesses. No good answers and yet, we are taught that it did some how happen, over time, because if not none of us would be here. This does not make any logical sense to me. This is an example of the magic of time. We have no proof, but we have lots of time and we have evidence that something happened but we don't know what, we just assume it had to happen over time as we have no evidence to the contrary. Also how to you test such a thing according to the scientific method? This is one you can likely run odds on, but I don't do the big math things, so I'll let that one be!
  14. And what of the two do you fall under?
  15. That's very interesting. To clarify, is it okay for me to tell someone he's acting like an idiot as long as I genuinely believe that is the case, since I'm telling the truth, or is it only safe when I'm telling that to a non-Christian and I know that there will be a moderator willing to look the other way? Hmm. again you are trying to pit people against each other, really bad form. U.F. Has a long history here. His argument was so weak, so much weaker then what we know him of being capable of, (again did you read the whole thread)? That the comment was about his remark and how out of character it was for his over all arguments. Now since UF did take offence at it, and apparently so have you, then I will add this. Lets be careful about not making threads personal or they will get shut down.
  16. My wife has been in your position several times actually. More so at the beginning of our marriage then later. (though it has happened) Her response was varied. On the situations that were like you described both in the wrong, she would wait till I cooled off and have me realize how I overacted, then wait till her mom cooled off (Sometimes this took awhile) and tried to talk some sense into her. It somehow worked usually. Or we just prayed about it and I dropped it! I don't know the answer and I don't know if it will work for you but that is what we did, and I'll be praying!
  17. Because if you understand WWII history and the pseudo Science that Hitler engaged in, if you said the right things and were blond haired and blue eyed you would be able to blend right in with Hitler's crazy scheme of things. There were blond haired blue eyed Jews that did just that to escape the gas chambers, and were able to do so because they fit the "Scientific" Aryan race measurements. You see that is a statement of fact, as it happened. Stating that Japanese and Chinese are indistinguishable is only true when a person who has no real experiences with them to tell them apart, See U.F.'s Thread in your defense. Also trying to pit people against each other is a poor way to debate. Um, actually it does. http://creation.com/...us-retroviruses and again you are trying to muddy the waters of the point of this thread. There are two viewpoints that explain the data. That is my only point. What set of data you prefer, is up to you to choose. Obviously you disregard the creationist explanation, and accept the evolutionist one, as that already gels with your worldview that there is no God. By the way I started this thread to debate a Theist who is an evolutionist. Not really to debate atheists, as you seem to have assumed, not that I mind, but its really not about atheism at all this one. I have never said that Creationist have not done this before. I have said that in my opening statement, I have repeated this over and over, and even in my other two threads on the same lines. Creationism is not strict science. Your preaching to the choir on this point. However you refuse like others to acknowledge that Evolutionist have done and will do the same thing anytime the data does not fit, they ignore it, or throw it out, or simply say that "Well it works this way over millions of years" even though there is no such evidence to prove that. First off, I am not focusing only on evolutionary biology. I am speaking of it, as if you really read the thread, not just cherry picked as it seems you have, that it was agreed upon that we would focus on that part of it, per D-9 the evolutionist. I was respecting his viewpoint on that, and staying to that. As for the rest of the points you make, I'll address those in another thread if you wish but yet you keep making claims with out providing evidence, or better yet facts to back them up. That is an emotional response not based in logic if I have ever seen one. Think about it , if it was proven that evolution was a conspiracy, trying to disprove one thing, that would make evolution wrong and creationism right. What you said here makes no sense logically. But it proves again my point of this thread, science is not to be emotionally driven. Actually no they were not. One was based on old data, and I admitted that. The rest I was not arguing about the data, but that the data was interpreted two different ways, and or there are points that are ignored. Also Interesting you did not remark on me not knowing the scientific method. You refuse to give me any credit for knowing anything, I have admitted to using old data, however why can you not admit I may know something? Again I was reiterating something that I and others have said repeatedly. Evolutionists use "Time" as a magic wand. If you don't know how something happens, or have no proof, you just say it happened over millions or more years and all of a sudden everything works. For instance Sexual reproduction I have yet had anyone tell me how that works. What are the odds of a creature developing as a male and female that work perfectly to procreate at the same time? I hear some about cell splitting and such but yet there is no answer to this, and yet it just happened, "Over time" You see a lot of things in evolution "Just happen" "Over Time" I see it on tv all the time, I read about it, and I was taught that in school as it all just happened over time with no real reasoning behind it. That was not a loaded question, it was a direct question. Again I apologize I should have emailed you that question as I usually do, that was a lack of judgement on my part. However if a thread starts getting out of hand I will warn. Me telling you not to make a thread personal was a warning. Yes you have done that, and made personal remarks but not attacks, I was wrong on that. However this thread was not about me but about a subject of debate. You have come in and changed it. You have made this thread about me, and that is either because you are unwilling or unable to bring honest debate to the thread. Simply stating that you are right and I am wrong is about the worst possible argument you can bring. You say I am wrong and you say you need not reply as others have, and yet you don't even quote what the others said. You just try to make me look bad as a person, and honestly as ignorant, and dumb, with you stating that I don't know the basics of science. This sort of behavior is against the TOS, and will be warned about and then stopped. I will admit I was a bit tired the other night and should have been more clear about what you did that was in violation of said rules. In this thread you made the thread about my attitude in the thread, not the subject matter. For the record, I will agree with my last post, I was a little frustrated as my words were taken out of context and twisted to say what I did not say, 2 times before, and then I was told that I was wrong about something that I did not say. There fore I made bold and in big the word "IF" because I was putting forth a hypothetical question and even answered it in the way a creationist and an evolutionist would respond to the same data, and yet everyone seems to think that I stated that as fact, and then went on to say how wrong I was, and then repeat exactly what I said in the first place. You can understand why I would be a bit frustrated with people taking what I said and arguing with me on something that I agree with them on. Oh and to date not one of them has replied to that, or admits that they read it wrong and completely missed my point. Again on that I apologize it is my job to see where people are coming from, I should have done it via email, again I am sorry, I was not really thinking through what I was typing, I really should avoid deep convos when I am dealing with insomnia.
  18. I admit I missed the Appears part. As for the ignorance you stated as fact something that is only true to a person who is ignorant of the differances in physical appearance of Asian people. It was not a attack but a statement of fact. Well you would need to read more than one thread to get an full picture,otherwise you will have no real clue. Really? Where? I even retracted my statement on the sun when show it was based off of old data. Um any do people keep claiming that I am arguing ERVs when all I have said about them is that the are an example of one set of data with two vewpoints.I have not once argued about them in this thread. Only when it comes to evolution and other "origin "fields of study. It would seem you jump to conclusions quickly without evidance.I know it well and see evolution as failing to follow it. Proof. Yes but you never did a point by point on what I posted but summed up your opinion of me only last statement an an argument that I did not make,and assumed I was ignorant of the scientific method. Coming to the conclusion that I was simply angry and non logical. Why not do a point by point breakdown of what I have said notmy summation or a statement taken out of context. Ahhh your right I should not have questioned your motives in public. However as a mod if I suspect trouble brewing I need to ask. However you have assumed much in my motives and responses. The discussions becomi g personal are the only ones where I "threaten" or rather remind people of the tos. You have perceived this thread as hostile however that is not the case.
  19. I think your statement clearly shows that creationism is faith based. On the other hand, science is based on logic. Thus, the opening question is neatly answered. I miss read that. Science is logic however my op was about evolution which uses logic to a point and fills in the gaps with faith.
  20. Hmm personal unprovoked attackes are against the tos. I was summing up my leanghty OP and my many leanghty replies. Did you read the whole thread? Do you know me,my background and what I know about science? You have no grounds to speak if not. As i have laid out my case before and you have not takenen the time to read what I have actually said before. Do not make subjects personal that is part of the rules. You seem to do this here a lot are you here to only cause strife?
  21. This is, in part, why I say that there is tension between the scientific method and creationists/Christians, and while many value the products of science they don't always like the methodology of science. In science you cannot use biblical authority, this doesn't mean you have to relinquish your position on biblical authority in an ultimate sense, rather it has no place in science and that is something many Christians are just unable or unwilling to do. Actually since Christians Wrote most of the methodology we have no problem with it. It not being applied we have issue with. They do not apply it to evolution, they do but in part and when something comes up they do not want to face they ignore science for there own guess.
  22. I think your statement clearly shows that creationism is faith based. On the other hand, science is based on logic. Thus, the opening question is neatly answered. Yes we know Creationism is faith based. So is evolution. There is always the magic of "Time" to fix any holes in the theory. Yet the holes remain.
  23. Having read both links, it's obvious that Luskin was misrepresenting what Scott wrote. The more I read of creationist writings, the more I come across what appears to be intentional misrepresentation of science and scientists. And I have seen evolutionists do the same thing about both each other and creationists. So please do not call pots black when you yourself are a kettle.
  24. Hi Isaiah, Thanks for the clarification. So, if I were to claim that you are acting like an idiot, you won't consider that an insult? I am thinking I am beginning to understand what apologetic mental gymnastics is all about. Regards, UndecidedFrog No I would not, not if it was in the context of me making a poor argument when I had made other sound ones. Oh and I read wrong he said you were "Pretending to be and Idiot" In other words, he felt that that response was not normal for you and you were putting on an act.
  25. Hi Isaiah, Thanks for the clarification. So, if I were to claim that you are acting like an idiot, you won't consider that an insult? I am thinking I am beginning to understand what apologetic mental gymnastics is all about. Regards, UndecidedFrog No I would not, not if it was in the context of me making a poor argument when I had made other sound ones.
×
×
  • Create New...