Originally posted by scottishinnzYou mind putting it in context, at least give me enough to know which
Yes it is. Constantly, and without remission.
of my many posts are your complaining about this time? Unless you
want to see me say this is how you treat the things I do say, you take a
little bit out of context and run with it.
Constantly and without remission.
Kelly
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSounds like you are admitting other people and other faiths are more open to debate than you and could actually admit they were wrong.
That's not entirely true. I doubt that today's Biblical literalists have much in common with the early Christians. Even the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches appear to have significant doctrinal differences. The beliefs of Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims diverge, while Sufis are considered heretical by both. Judaism is a veritable wilderness of in ...[text shortened]... And so on. What many rationalists lack is the ability to find meaning in such belief systems.
Even in the dark ages, there was agreement that reason was also needed to work out the details of the world. You on the other hand have no such failure.
We have shown you link after link of the evidence and all you can do is stick to the same drooling story, you are unable to change. Bottom line. You will probably die unaware of the true beauty of the universe in front of your nose, being convinced it can only happen one way. I feel sorry for your inelastic neurons, the plasticity has gone probably forever as a result of your very effective religious brainwashing.
Originally posted by KellyJayI'll ask again. Why are you willing to kill someone based solely on scientific evidence but refuse to acknowledge the validity of a theory based on scientific evidence?
You mind putting it in context, at least give me enough to know which
of my many posts are your complaining about this time? Unless you
want to see me say this is how you treat the things I do say, you take a
little bit out of context and run with it.
Constantly and without remission.
Kelly
"if it is what we see in the here and now that is one thing;
however, saying the evidence means this or that years ago that is all
together is something different."
At what point in time does evidence stop being valid?
I suppose I don't have any more of a chance of getting a coherent answer out of you than anyone else, but at least I tried. I'm sure you will ignore me and go on to post the same tired arguement in another thread.
oh well....
Originally posted by whiteroseShow me where I ever said I refused to acknowledge the validity of
I'll ask again. Why are you willing to kill someone based solely on scientific evidence but refuse to acknowledge the validity of a theory based on scientific evidence?
"if it is what we see in the here and now that is one thing;
however, saying the evidence means this or that years ago that is all
together is something different."
At what poin ...[text shortened]... u will ignore me and go on to post the same tired arguement in another thread.
oh well....
a theory?
Kelly
Originally posted by whiterose"At what point in time does evidence stop being valid?"
I'll ask again. Why are you willing to kill someone based solely on scientific evidence but refuse to acknowledge the validity of a theory based on scientific evidence?
"if it is what we see in the here and now that is one thing;
however, saying the evidence means this or that years ago that is all
together is something different."
At what poin ...[text shortened]... u will ignore me and go on to post the same tired arguement in another thread.
oh well....
Ten seconds, ten minutes, ten days, ten weeks whatever, it depends
on what we are talking about, it depends on the evidence being
presented. You seem to think that if I say we must accept something
on faith it means I don't think it isn't true or real or valid that is not
the case.
Kelly
Originally posted by whiterose"I suppose I don't have any more of a chance of getting a coherent answer out of you than anyone else, but at least I tried. I'm sure you will ignore me and go on to post the same tired arguement in another thread."
I'll ask again. Why are you willing to kill someone based solely on scientific evidence but refuse to acknowledge the validity of a theory based on scientific evidence?
"if it is what we see in the here and now that is one thing;
however, saying the evidence means this or that years ago that is all
together is something different."
At what poin u will ignore me and go on to post the same tired arguement in another thread.
oh well....
I am not forcing you to talk to me, stop if you cannot grasp what I'm
saying, either because I'm not making it clear, or you simply have
blinders on and can only see things if they fit your view the universe.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you acknowledge the validity of the theory of evolution? You state over and over again that evolution is just a "belief" as is creationism, as if this somehow makes them equal.
Show me where I ever said I refused to acknowledge the validity of
a theory?
Kelly
If you do acknowledge the validity of evolutionary theory then why do you keep making these statements?
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you believe in going with weight of evidence then what is your problem with evolution?
"At what point in time does evidence stop being valid?"
Ten seconds, ten minutes, ten days, ten weeks whatever, it depends
on what we are talking about, it depends on the evidence being
presented. You seem to think that if I say we must accept something
on faith it means I don't think it isn't true or real or valid that is not
the case.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI cannot grasp what you are saying because you contradict yourself, not because I have blinders on.
"I suppose I don't have any more of a chance of getting a coherent answer out of you than anyone else, but at least I tried. I'm sure you will ignore me and go on to post the same tired arguement in another thread."
I am not forcing you to talk to me, stop if you cannot grasp what I'm
saying, either because I'm not making it clear, or you simply have
blinders on and can only see things if they fit your view the universe.
Kelly
Originally posted by whiteroseSaying evolution is a belief is very vague, I believe in evolutionary
Do you acknowledge the validity of the theory of evolution? You state over and over again that evolution is just a "belief" as is creationism, as if this somehow makes them equal.
If you do acknowledge the validity of evolutionary theory then why do you keep making these statements?
change; however, that does not mean that I accept all things that
are 'believed' about that subject. It is just as possible to say that
I accept creation, yet differ are certain views on the creation story
too, you are being too vague in your complaint.
Get specific! Do you believe that evolution is true, fine I do too, having
said that there are things about that I'm sure you could say you have
issues with as I do, just as you could put two creationist in a discussion
on creation and get disagreement too.
Kelly
Originally posted by whiteroseI don't think you grasp what I'm saying because you keep trying to
I cannot grasp what you are saying because you contradict yourself, not because I have blinders on.
get me to validate something I have already said I agree with, you
keep missing the point. Could be my fault, the bottom line is you
think that my saying because faith is involved in science that some
how makes science wrong or bad in my view I guess. It isn't the case
but when people have to makes leaps of faith they should at least
acknowledge that is what they are doing. If within science it is
acknowledged that we may have to change our views on any subject
when new infomation comes along, it then rests in the realm of faith
when anyone accepts something as true, because within science there
is always wiggle roon for change, nothing is certain.
Kelly
Originally posted by whiteroseNever said I had one, but you keep attempting make one up from
If you believe in going with weight of evidence then what is your problem with evolution?
the things I have said. Point to my complaints on evolution, and we
can discuss them, you said you have been following my posts so it
shouldn't be to hard.
Kelly
And we go round and round in circles. Your problem with evolution is that you believe it to be based on faith. Here are some posts to back this up:
"What I'm really saying is faith is faith, we are people and we live by it. You can try to say your faith in the logic of some scientist is better
than someone else's faith in God, I don't care! It is still faith, when
you apply your belief system to the world around you and come up
with what you call truth or facts. You may be right, you may be wrong,
it depends on the subject matter, bottom line you are still a person of
faith, it is just being put into something other than what I put mine
into."
"Much of what is called evidence are simply
stories wrapped around items, tests, beliefs where things are claimed
to mean this or that, it could be true, maybe not, the point it is, it is
still faith like it or not."
"people believe what they will, and like minded people are still a
bunch of like minded people. Science bottoms out with people being
in agreement, okay is that what you mean? We don't need labs for
such a thing to occur, just tell everyone what you want them to
believe."
"you don't think someone suggesting when they look at a
piece of 'evidence' that the way they 'describe' it has beliefs and
faith wrapped up in the description?"
This negates the concept that weight of evidence should have an effect on belief. It also negates the concept that there is such a thing as a fact.
However, you then go on to say:
"What is real, does not depend upon human guess work or theories, it simply is what it is no matter what we think about it."
"I'm in agreement with you that I call what I went through
yesterday a fact, Facts do not depend upon my grasp of them that is perception and beliefs."
So what is a fact? If "faith is faith" and "evidence has belief and faith wraped up in the description" then there can be no facts and and you certainly cannot call what you went through yesterday a 'fact', nor can you say that anything is real.
Either nothing is real, or weight of evidence has bearing on the validity of people's beliefs, to the extent that some of them can be called facts. You cannot have it both ways.