Guest arkon Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 I believe what ScientificAteist is saying is He did not read the answer I provided. Anyone else who comes along and reads this thread , WANTING to see both sides so they can judge for themselves, will have the information. SA does not, and it appears, will not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Arkon, I did read your post, very carefully, and responded to each part in turn - rather it is you who has systematically ignored or omitted to read my posts, not only in this section but in other threads throughout apologetics. I have plenty of evidence of this in all my threads to which you have responded. Artsylady, I am not here to have a high-brow scientific debate, but rather I am here to educate. I have stated before that I have had discussions with professional creationists in the past, to no effect other than a descent into ad hominem, and I do not intend to repeat the experience in the near future. So, given that I do not expect to be talking here to educated scientists, could it be argued that I am simply a bully - someone who has come here to intimidate people with my scientific knowledge in order to quieten them into submission? Well, the answer is clearly no, I have not. Anyone who comes to me with a question about science, even if it is critical, will be treated with the respect and dignity that any open, learning mind deserves. I will answer as many questions from this sort of person as they have to ask - and all I demand from them is that they read and consider my answer. I will try not to bully them, or even worse confuse them with scientific jargon. If they find follow up questions, say, by checking my original answers on a creationist website and coming up with further queries or doubt - then I will be happy to answer these too, in as simple and easy to understand a way as possible. However, not everyone comes to me like that. Arkon is perhaps the opposite of the open minded person I have just described. He or she has already decided what they believe, no matter what the evidence says - and even goes so far as to refuse to read my detailed posts on subjects such as radiometric dating. As I have stated, I have a lot of evidence that Arkon hasn't read my posts - he has been guilty of it again and again on this forum since we have been discussing these subjects. Perhaps worse is Arkon's arrogance. It would be one thing if someone came to me and said "Nik, I'm a young earth creationist, but I'd like to hear the arguments for an old earth please?" and then I batted them away. That is not the case with Arkon however. He seems absolutely convinced not only of the truth of his proposition, but his wisdom on the subject. He stated it openly in his last but one post on this thread: "I could explain it. I could sit here and take the time and type it all in.........." This statement is not only arrogant, but also has the distinct disadvantage of being false. Arkon can't explain these things, and by challenging him to actually come up with details of how I am wrong, I was simply exposing this falsehood. Now, it would have been cruel to expose the ignorance of a humble person - someone who came to ask me honest questions or critique my threads - but in the case of Arkon such exposure is necessary to encourage the sort of humility that is essential for learning. I will also continue to say every time a new piece of evidence comes to light to the effect that Arkon is ignoring my posts, and what I am saying - not because I like to humiliate people, but because everyone on a bulletin board like this should at least be open minded enough to read other people's points of view before denouncing them as false. So artsylady, it doesn't make me feel better about myself to "pick on" people whose knowledge in this area is less than mine. In fact, if anything, I feel responsible for the attitude and mindset of people like Arkon, and also more open-minded creationists - because the scientific community, and enlightened people more generally, should really do their best to educate others, and with Arkon we have so far failed. Thankyou for your comments anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Arkon, I did read your post, very carefully, and responded to each part in turn - rather it is you who has systematically ignored or omitted to read my posts, not only in this section but in other threads throughout apologetics. I have plenty of evidence of this in all my threads to which you have responded. Artsylady, I am not here to have a high-brow scientific debate, but rather I am here to educate. I have stated before that I have had discussions with professional creationists in the past, to no effect other than a descent into ad hominem, and I do not intend to repeat the experience in the near future. So, given that I do not expect to be talking here to educated scientists, could it be argued that I am simply a bully - someone who has come here to intimidate people with my scientific knowledge in order to quieten them into submission? Well, the answer is clearly no, I have not. Anyone who comes to me with a question about science, even if it is critical, will be treated with the respect and dignity that any open, learning mind deserves. I will answer as many questions from this sort of person as they have to ask - and all I demand from them is that they read and consider my answer. I will try not to bully them, or even worse confuse them with scientific jargon. If they find follow up questions, say, by checking my original answers on a creationist website and coming up with further queries or doubt - then I will be happy to answer these too, in as simple and easy to understand a way as possible. However, not everyone comes to me like that. Arkon is perhaps the opposite of the open minded person I have just described. He or she has already decided what they believe, no matter what the evidence says - and even goes so far as to refuse to read my detailed posts on subjects such as radiometric dating. As I have stated, I have a lot of evidence that Arkon hasn't read my posts - he has been guilty of it again and again on this forum since we have been discussing these subjects. Perhaps worse is Arkon's arrogance. It would be one thing if someone came to me and said "Nik, I'm a young earth creationist, but I'd like to hear the arguments for an old earth please?" and then I batted them away. That is not the case with Arkon however. He seems absolutely convinced not only of the truth of his proposition, but his wisdom on the subject. He stated it openly in his last but one post on this thread: "I could explain it. I could sit here and take the time and type it all in.........." This statement is not only arrogant, but also has the distinct disadvantage of being false. Arkon can't explain these things, and by challenging him to actually come up with details of how I am wrong, I was simply exposing this falsehood. Now, it would have been cruel to expose the ignorance of a humble person - someone who came to ask me honest questions or critique my threads - but in the case of Arkon such exposure is necessary to encourage the sort of humility that is essential for learning. I will also continue to say every time a new piece of evidence comes to light to the effect that Arkon is ignoring my posts, and what I am saying - not because I like to humiliate people, but because everyone on a bulletin board like this should at least be open minded enough to read other people's points of view before denouncing them as false. So artsylady, it doesn't make me feel better about myself to "pick on" people whose knowledge in this area is less than mine. In fact, if anything, I feel responsible for the attitude and mindset of people like Arkon, and also more open-minded creationists - because the scientific community, and enlightened people more generally, should really do their best to educate others, and with Arkon we have so far failed. Thankyou for your comments anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Arkon, I did read your post, very carefully, and responded to each part in turn - rather it is you who has systematically ignored or omitted to read my posts, not only in this section but in other threads throughout apologetics. I have plenty of evidence of this in all my threads to which you have responded. Artsylady, I am not here to have a high-brow scientific debate, but rather I am here to educate. I have stated before that I have had discussions with professional creationists in the past, to no effect other than a descent into ad hominem, and I do not intend to repeat the experience in the near future. So, given that I do not expect to be talking here to educated scientists, could it be argued that I am simply a bully - someone who has come here to intimidate people with my scientific knowledge in order to quieten them into submission? Well, the answer is clearly no, I have not. Anyone who comes to me with a question about science, even if it is critical, will be treated with the respect and dignity that any open, learning mind deserves. I will answer as many questions from this sort of person as they have to ask - and all I demand from them is that they read and consider my answer. I will try not to bully them, or even worse confuse them with scientific jargon. If they find follow up questions, say, by checking my original answers on a creationist website and coming up with further queries or doubt - then I will be happy to answer these too, in as simple and easy to understand a way as possible. However, not everyone comes to me like that. Arkon is perhaps the opposite of the open minded person I have just described. He or she has already decided what they believe, no matter what the evidence says - and even goes so far as to refuse to read my detailed posts on subjects such as radiometric dating. As I have stated, I have a lot of evidence that Arkon hasn't read my posts - he has been guilty of it again and again on this forum since we have been discussing these subjects. Perhaps worse is Arkon's arrogance. It would be one thing if someone came to me and said "Nik, I'm a young earth creationist, but I'd like to hear the arguments for an old earth please?" and then I batted them away. That is not the case with Arkon however. He seems absolutely convinced not only of the truth of his proposition, but his wisdom on the subject. He stated it openly in his last but one post on this thread: "I could explain it. I could sit here and take the time and type it all in.........." This statement is not only arrogant, but also has the distinct disadvantage of being false. Arkon can't explain these things, and by challenging him to actually come up with details of how I am wrong, I was simply exposing this falsehood. Now, it would have been cruel to expose the ignorance of a humble person - someone who came to ask me honest questions or critique my threads - but in the case of Arkon such exposure is necessary to encourage the sort of humility that is essential for learning. I will also continue to say every time a new piece of evidence comes to light to the effect that Arkon is ignoring my posts, and what I am saying - not because I like to humiliate people, but because everyone on a bulletin board like this should at least be open minded enough to read other people's points of view before denouncing them as false. So artsylady, it doesn't make me feel better about myself to "pick on" people whose knowledge in this area is less than mine. In fact, if anything, I feel responsible for the attitude and mindset of people like Arkon, and also more open-minded creationists - because the scientific community, and enlightened people more generally, should really do their best to educate others, and with Arkon we have so far failed. Thankyou for your comments anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 25, 2004 I am not here to have a high-brow scientific debate, but rather I am here to educate. Why aren't you a teacher then, if you feel you need to educate? Why not go to science forums? Why go to Christian sites? I have stated before that I have had discussions with professional creationists in the past, to no effect other than a descent into ad hominem, and I do not intend to repeat the experience in the near future. A public debate with a moderator would be more condusive? Go for it! They're screaming for people like you to debate publicly with, but no takers! Well, the answer is clearly no, I have not. Anyone who comes to me with a question about science, even if it is critical, will be treated with the respect and dignity that any open, learning mind deserves. Well, fine then, but when anyone here gives you something to consider, you dismiss it as quickly as you can. It's very obvious that since you don't want to believe in God, you will not consider any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. However, not everyone comes to me like that. Arkon is perhaps the opposite of the open minded person I have just described. He or she has already decided what they believe, no matter what the evidence says - and even goes so far as to refuse to read my detailed posts on subjects such as radiometric dating. As I have stated, I have a lot of evidence that Arkon hasn't read my posts - he has been guilty of it again and again on this forum since we have been discussing these subjects. Pot - kettle - black. You've disregarded many things put forth here as well. It's clear you want to shoot back any answers without consideration or an open mind to the possibilities that you are wrong. It's also clear that you don't even READ some of the posts - you just answer them. How long do you think you'll continue to fight God? All of your life perhaps? If you truly believed that there was no God, then why fight this 'non-belief', this 'nothingness' with such fervor? Athiests liken the belief in God to that of a fairy tale and then spend their lives trying to fight this 'fairytale'. Why try to convince Christians that there is no evidence for God, like the conclusion you came to at age 7 and have been continually trying to prove since then. Who are you really trying to convince - us or yourself? You've already admitted that it is not intelligent to assume mankind already knows everything and that you don't know everything and that there might very well be a God out there. So it's time to look fairly at the evidence that there might be one, open up your mind to this possibility and take a closer, honest look at the evidence for God. If you say you've already done this, I'm sorry, I simply do not believe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 25, 2004 I think she was referring to the fact that marine life was wiped out. I was - How did Noah's flood wipe out marine life? That makes no sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 25, 2004 How did Noah's flood wipe out marine life? I'll take an uneducated guess. Don't hammer me if it's wrong though because this is just off the top of my pretty lil head. lol. The waters rose very high and when they receded, some of the marine life ended up on land rather than in bodies of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 25, 2004 How did Noah's flood wipe out marine life? I'll take an uneducated guess. Don't hammer me if it's wrong though because this is just off the top of my pretty lil head. lol. The waters rose very high and when they receded, some of the marine life ended up on land rather than in bodies of water. Well, "some of" is not "all," and there are several "alls" that completely came to an end for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 25, 2004 Well, "some of" is not "all," and there are several "alls" that completely came to an end for good. Remember the ceaolocanth? (sp) They said it had been extinct for millions of years until fisherman starting catching them. Obviously, just because you find fossils and don't happen to see any living creatures like it, doesn't mean you know exactly when they became extinct. You many know that that particular creature died in that rock strata dated at whatever date, but you can't presume they all died at the same time. (Then again, I guess they do make these absurd kinds of presumptions. ) Many sea creatures died in the flood, but that doesn't mean that their brother and sisters didn't find waters and continued living. There is no proof that they didn't continue living and it would very difficult to prove such a thing, as you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Well, that would be fine except that there are recoreded to be more "extinct" species than there are species that are currently recorded as "living." That's an aweful lot of "hidden species." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts