11 Feb 15
Originally posted by lemon limeMy question is not to CalJust, it's to you. Do you think the scientists ~ who have argued that the Grand Canyon is younger than other scientists thought it was ~ be respected for their work [and what they have discovered about what you believe is your God figure's "creation"] regardless of their religious beliefs, and regardless of whether they are theists or atheists?
So if his post was an appropriate response to your specific exhortation in the OP, or appropriate for any reason, whether it had anything to with your OP or not, then how could my on topic response to his (appropriate) on topic message be inappropriate?
11 Feb 15
Originally posted by FMFMy question is not to CalJust, it's to you.
My question is not to CalJust, it's to you. Do you think the scientists ~ who have argued that the Grand Canyon is younger than other scientists thought it was ~ be respected for their work [and what they have discovered about what you believe is your God figure's "creation"] regardless of their religious beliefs, and regardless of whether they are theists or atheists?
And my last question was to you, not to CalJust. But you actually answered my last question by not answering... so now I have the satisfaction of nullifying at least one of your attempts to avoid answering.
Originally posted by lemon limeI did. Did you not see? Here it is: CalJust's response to my OP was a response to my OP, and he seemed to understand the OP, so I didn't need to "advise him to respond to the OP". I then took a part of it and used it to start a thread ~ which has generated no interest whatsoever.
Do you intend to answer this, or not?
11 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you admit that your entire raison d'etre here is to repeatedly state, despite evidence to the contrary, that science is not true? And as long as science is not true, then yes, they do have to be opposites?
I do not believe that science and religion have to be opposites, as long as both are true. 😏
Is this why you can't see they are both true? Because then they wouldn't be opposites and your whole reason for being disintegrates?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThey are opposites.
So you admit that your entire raison d'etre here is to repeatedly state, despite evidence to the contrary, that science is not true? And as long as science is not true, then yes, they do have to be opposites?
Is this why you can't see they are both true? Because then they wouldn't be opposites and your whole reason for being disintegrates?
One requires evidence, the other requires faith.
One is true, the other isn't.
The fact that you accept more science than RJHinds [which, lets face it, is not hard]
doesn't mean that science and religion are compatible with one another.
12 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI did not say all science or religion is not true. But I oppose that which is falsely called science, like stating the ancestors of humans were worms, fish, and monkeys, or that dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, or the earth is over 4 billion years old.
So you admit that your entire raison d'etre here is to repeatedly state, despite evidence to the contrary, that science is not true? And as long as science is not true, then yes, they do have to be opposites?
Is this why you can't see they are both true? Because then they wouldn't be opposites and your whole reason for being disintegrates?
Originally posted by googlefudgeBelieving that the ancestor of humans were worms, fish, and monkeys reqires faith too. Believing the earth is over 4 billion years old also requires faith. 😏
They are opposites.
One requires evidence, the other requires faith.
One is true, the other isn't.
The fact that you accept more science than RJHinds [which, lets face it, is not hard]
doesn't mean that science and religion are compatible with one another.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is a lie.
Believing that the ancestor of humans were worms, fish, and monkeys reqires faith too. Believing the earth is over 4 billion years old also requires faith. 😏
It's a lie because you know it is wrong, and yet you say it anyway.
We have evidence, [in massive quantities] that supports one and only one
conclusion. That the Earth is ancient, and that life evolved via natural selection.
Thus belief in the same is based on evidence.
It thus BY DEFINITION is not based on faith.
This would in fact still be true even if the evidence turned out to be faulty,
for example if your satan manufactured it.
It would still be belief based on evidence, and not based on faith.
And again, you demonstrate your boundless ignorance and will-full stupidity in
your straw man characterisations of Evolution by natural selection.
12 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI haven't seen this abundance of evidence that you claim is there. However, my faith in Christianity is also based on evidence that I have seen. 😏
This is a lie.
It's a lie because you know it is wrong, and yet you say it anyway.
We have evidence, [in massive quantities] that supports one and only one
conclusion. That the Earth is ancient, and that life evolved via natural selection.
Thus belief in the same is based on evidence.
It thus BY DEFINITION is not based on faith.
This wo ...[text shortened]... and will-full stupidity in
your straw man characterisations of Evolution by natural selection.
12 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIf course he understood the OP, and the only reason you assume I don't is because I don't happen to agree with either one of you.
I did. Did you not see? Here it is: CalJust's response to my OP was a response to my OP, and he seemed to understand the OP, so I didn't need to "advise him to respond to the OP". I then took a part of it and used it to start a thread ~ which has generated no interest whatsoever.
You're trying too hard to exercise control over this discussion. It's enough to turn anyone off, including people who might happen to agree with you. That's why so little interest has been generated, because people generally don't want to become part of a heavily lopsided discussion where only one point of view is acceptable.
12 Feb 15
Originally posted by lemon limeWe're on page 11 here so there's been some interest, clearly. I don't see how it has been "a heavily lopsided discussion". If by "only one point of view is acceptable" you mean that not everyone agrees with everyone else, or you feel overly disagreed with [or some such], well that's just par for the course on a discussion and debate message board.
That's why so little interest has been generated, because people generally don't want to become part of a heavily lopsided discussion where only one point of view is acceptable.