Atheists can receive grants to help them support their unsubstantiated worldviews.
Atheists????? Both atheist and theist scientists get grant money to study the universe.
It's also hilarious to see people like yourself label the Big Bang theory as atheistic. I guess you never heard of George Lemaitre, the guy who came up with the theory? He's the guy on the left.
Yes, the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, a theist, not an atheist.
Satan, as the present ruler of this age, has deluded the world into believing that we are the result of Darwinian evolution. There is absolutely nothing to support this, but in order to dismiss a Creator and His laws human gravitate to this nonsense.
It never entered his mind that the Creator would employ similar traits and characteristics in creation.
It apparently never occurred to you why a Creator would be required to fit those similar traits into a nested hierarchy. Why would we expect to see a nested hierarchy if species were created separately? Your argument was already addressed 140 years ago, and you still haven't got the memo:
quote:
Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause. --George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
What is the law of parsimony? From the same source:
quote:
For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that this way of looking at the evidence in favour of natural selection is not a scientific or a reasonable way of looking at it, but a purely superstitious way.
They somehow forget that as we add complexity that the law if entropy and randomness is pushing it back in the other direction. It's similar to trying to go uphill while a greater force is pushing it downhill. The law of entropy leads to decay of complexity. What we observe in living organisms is complexity that didn't come from simplicity, because that violates the Law of Thermodynamics.
It cracks me up that creationists have such a distorted and wrong view of thermodynamics that they make human reproduction impossible. Each of us starts out as a single cell, and over time we grow into a complex human being. If that doesn't violate thermodynamics, then neither does evolution.
Grant money should go to study possible, and even likely, events that happened in the past.
That's why grant money is given to study evolution and the Big Bang.
Every nation on earth have their stories of a worldwide flood.
No, they don't. Not every nation has a flood myth, and the nations that do have a flood myth many of them are only local floods with many of the details of the myths contradicting each other across nations.
And, Earth's strata certainly points to a worldwide deluge.
Yet another claim you will never support with evidence.
Why is it taboo to suggest that there might have been a worldwide flood when evidence seems to suggest that this is a real possibility?
What evidence?????
How can it be "real science" when a viable option is left out?
You would first need to supply evidence that a recent global flood is a viable option.
Huge fossil graveyards are scattered across the globe. Atheists insist that these graveyards are the result of many large regional floods.
Do you count our current oceans as large regional floods? What about the Great Lakes here in the US? Are those large regional floods?
There was a time when prayers were allowed in schools. There was a time when one was allowed to talk freely about Christ in our schools.
There was a time when students' first amendment rights were violated by religion being pushed in public schools. That was fixed. Students are still allowed to talk about religion all they want. The only prohibition is government officials evangelizing as part of official school activities.
Given how many lies you tell in every one of your posts, who do you think is feeding you this information?
Getting back on topic, why do you think you're so bad at persuasion?
Obviously, you will never answer his question, nor any question we ask you. Asking questions and responding to them is part of a common human activity called discussion; eg, Forum Rule 4
Forum Rules:4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Every stupid bullshit lie you have posted (actually, that's virtually all you have ever posted in your six years here) has been nothing more than a bare assertion. For that matter, you routinely violate every single aspect of that forum rule.
Is your inability to engage in human interaction an indication that you are not human? Are you nothing more than a very crappy AI? That could explain how you could generate so much stupid bullshit on a "too-tiny phone" without the inevitable "typos" injected by AutoCorrupt. Though you did once write "Giggle" instead of "Google".
We have also asked you just what you are trying to convince us of. What are you trying to accomplish here? Again, no response other than ever more steaming piles of irrelevant bullshit (AKA trying to change the subject). Obviously, that is another question you will never answer.
So then, let us examine what you have accomplished here and what you have convinced us of in your six years here. These are the points you have actually made here (list is by no means exhaustive):
You are nothing but a troll, the lowest form of life there is. Part of your trolling is being a stupid asshole.
We acknowledge your point.
You have nothing. You have no evidence to support your position. You don't even have any position that you have articulated. Nothing!
We acknowledge your point.
You do not know what you are talking about. That could explain your refusal to answer any questions, that you are simply incapable of explaining anything that you post. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
We acknowledge your point.
You are willing -- nay, eager, zealous even -- to tell any lie you think might advance your cause. Typical creationist hatred of the truth and embracing of lies. You seek to serve your god solely through lies and deception, which will serve to identify your god.
We acknowledge your point.
According to Christian doctrine, which we have all learned, the only Christian deity who is served through lies and deception is the Source of Lies, the Great Deceiver, Satan.
Therefore, you serve Satan and are actually a Satanist. Obviously, your charade of posing as a Christian is part of your intended purpose of discrediting Christianity, not that that religion needs any help in that regard.
We acknowledge your point.
Since everything you have ever posted here has turned out to be bullshit, it is obvious that everything you will ever post will also be bullshit. Therefore, we cannot take anything you say seriously and can simply ignore you. Or point and laugh.
We acknowledge your point.
Since your religion and god depend on your bullshit lies, both are also nothing but bullshit and can be dismissed outright. And since your bullshit lies are so stupid, your religion and god are also just as stupid. Nobody in their right mind would even begin to consider them.
We acknowledge your point.
That list is far from exhaustive, but that's all I have time for right now.
That is what you have convinced us of.
If that is what you intended to convince us of, then you have succeeded.
If that is not what you intended to convince us of, then you have failed. In that case, you would need to reevaluate your approach and change it to fit your intention.
IOW, you are clearly full of shit and will be treat accordingly.
Are you really too stupid to realize the damage that you do to your own position by constantly trying to bury us in stupid bullshit lies? Really?
Even if you were to have one good idea or valid concern ("Even a broken clock is right once a day." -- Rick Perry*), it just gets completely buried and lost under the extreme volume of stupid bullshit you spew. No good or valid idea has any chance of seeing the light of day while under your carelessness.
It's your own foot, dude, so fire away!
* FOOTNOTE:
Rick Perry was Governor of Texas after George W. ("Dubya") Bush. He was seen as being so dumb that Texans would refer to Dubya as "the smart one."
For example, during his forays into national politics, he was quoted as saying, "Even a broken clock is right once a day", reinforcing his image of not being the sharpest sandwich at the picnic. That saying says "twice a day."
Sorry for explaining the obvious, but I had to since it went right over Candle3's head.
Guardians of the Galaxy:
Peter Quill: It's just a metaphor, dude. Rocket Raccoon: His people are completely literal. Metaphors go over his head. Drax the Destroyer: *Nothing* goes over my head...! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.
Percy, you stated: "What flat-earthers and astrologers have in common with creationists is that none of them are doing science. Science grants go to people and groups who are doing science." ***Grant money should go to those who seek the truth.
So even you think that creationists should not receive grant money since they never seek that truth, but rather actively fabricate lies and traffic in deception.
That is what we have observed for many decades, over a century for some of the claims (though you're pushing that back to two centuries). Personally, I've been studying "creation science" since 1981 (about 43 years) earnestly looking for creationists' "mountains of evidence for creation" and so far have yet to see a single true creationist claim, nor even a single valid claim. According to Rick Perry (see above), at least one claim should be good even by sheer accident, but not a single one.
Nor am I alone in that experience; even the professionals couldn't find any valid creationist claim; eg, Thwaites & Awbrey who ran an actual "two-model" "creation/evolution" class in which both sides were presented (the creation side by leading professional creationists from the ICR) and the students decided for themselves (no surprise: creationism lost every semester):
Awbrey & Thwaites spent fifteen years frequently debating creationists (again contradicting your false assertion). They explained what their purpose was in those debates and what they had found ... or rather failed to find in their article, Our Last Debate: Our Very Last (Thwaites, W., and F. Awbrey, Creation/Evolution, Issue 33, Volume 13 Number 2, pp 1-4, Winter 1993 -- PDF of Issue 33); as I quote it on my website:
quote:
Scientists want to test their findings and find problems in their work, not only to verify the research that they will base theirs on, but also in order to find where the problems are, which indicates where they need to do further research. Two professors, William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey, developed a very effective method of debating creationists -- basically, study "creation science" so you go in knowing the truth about their claims -- and in 1993 summarized their highly successful 15-year career of debating against the leading creationists, Our last debate; our very last. They describe having entered into the debates with the hope and expectation that:
"... a creationist would dig up a real biological paradox, one that would prove to be an interesting brain-teaser for the scientific community. We hoped that we could use the creationists to ferret out biological enigmas much as DEA agents use dogs to seek out contraband. ... While we had discovered that every creationist claim so far could easily be disproved, we still had hope that there was a genuine quandary in there somewhere. We just hadn't found it yet."
What they did discover after those 15 years was that none of the creationists ever presented any real paradoxes or genuine quandaries. The creationists had no actual case to present.
In contrast, the last thing creationists would want would be to have their claims tested, since that would diminish their value in convincing people. And indeed, they do not allow their claims to be tested and when others do nonetheless perform those tests, they willfully ignore the results and continue to use those disproven claims in perpetuity. This creationist attitude and practice results in their claims being termed PRATTs, "Point(s) Refuted AThousand Times", AKA, "having to slay the slain." PRATTs are so hard to eradicate because, even though some of the creationists hearing the truth may become disaffected and abandon "creation science" (among other things), P.T. Barnum's "a sucker is born every minute" remark is proven true by the continual arrival of new generations of creationists who learn the refuted claims but not the truth about them.
And as we have already discussed so many times, creationism is nothing but a pack of lies because that's all that they have to work with. Remember, they're in the unenviable position of trying to disprove reality, for which reality cannot offer a shred of evidence. Due to that total lack of real evidence against reality, they have no other recourse than to lie out of their asses.
And, again as we have discussed several times (well, I discussed and you ran away): creationism is actually anti-Creation. As I explained yet again in Message 156, creationism is dedicated to disproving reality (AKA "the real world" that is all around us) which, in the scenario of it having been supernaturally created, would also be "The Creation". Therefore, creationism is also dedicated to disproving "The Creation" and, by extension, "The Creator".
And, of course, since everything you post is nothing more than creationist lies barely warmed over, everything you have posted has been nothing but lies. It doesn't matter that you are too willfully ignorant and willfully stupid and willfully gullible to know any different, lies are still lies.
And hence, back to the topic, you will never have any hope of ever convincing us when you use nothing but stupid lies THAT EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS ARE NOTHING BUT STUPID LIES.
Creationist claims are only able to fool an audience that is ignorant of the science being lied about or is pathologically predisposed to self-delusion. When presented to an audience with scientific knowledge, those claims fall apart immediately. And when presented to an audience familiar with creationism, those claims fall apart much more rapidly.
We here are of that latter group. Your stupid bullshit lies don't stand a chance here.
In sharp contrast, we are consistently honest and truthful in our responses. That is because we have no need to lie; we are not creationists!You are a creationist, so you have no other choice but to lie out of your ass. You have nothing else but lies.
"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."
You should think twice before reaching for that next clip of blanks.
Silly me! You haven't even thought once, now have you?
Are you really too stupid to realize the damage that you do to your own position by constantly trying to bury us in stupid bullshit lies? Really? Even if you were to have one good idea or valid concern ("Even a broken clock is right once a day." -- Rick Perry*), it just gets completely buried and lost under the extreme volume of stupid bullshit you spew. No good or valid idea has any chance of seeing the light of day while under your carelessness.
A warning from St. Augustine is worth mentioning.
quote:
It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [unbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books [Scriptures], how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? --St. Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", Book 1, Chapter 19.
Besides, wasn't St. Augustine a Catholic? Candle3 hates Catholics! He will immediately reject anything a Catholic says.
The Roman Catholic Church was founded in 590 AD and St. Augustine died in 430 AD. He is held in high regard by all the main branches of Christianity. According to Wiki, Augustine's theological views were instrumental in the Protestant Reformation, so about as anti-Catholic as it gets for a 5th century theologian.
quote:
Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace.[29][30][31] Protestant Reformers generally, and Martin Luther in particular, held Augustine in preeminence among early Church Fathers. From 1505 to 1521, Luther was a member of the Order of the Augustinian Eremites. Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia
In your latest shit-load dump of bullshit, one of the themes is that you creationists have lots of evidence that science refuses to even consider and has always ignored. The truth of the matter is that science has indeed considered that evidence, considered it long ago (ie, several decades and even one or two centuries ago), tested it, and discarded it after it failed those tests.
That's how science works: consider the possibilities, test them, and eliminate the ones that do not work. Since claims of the supernatural cannot be tested, they do not fit into that protocol. To repeat yet again a quote from Carl Sagan (most previously in Message 1247 (19-Dec-2024) ):
In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was:
"To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.
The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
To summarize: physics can and does eliminate bad ideas, whereas metaphysics is incapable of cleaning house of such rubbish.
You are "criticizing" science for being able to do science, while creationism is bogged down by old bad ideas that it cannot shake off. You are truly the pot calling the silverware black.
I am not the only one to see this. Here again is from an article that Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish, the "Founding Fathers" of "creation science" (AKA "creationism") praised highly. Unfortunately for them they could not see past their quote-mining of it and couldn't see that it condemned them (Dr. Gish even mailed me a copy of it):
Your only response is to pile bullshit upon bullshit upon more bullshit.
You have already proven to us that nothing you post can be assumed to be true. You have done this by posting known and provable falsehoods about things that we are able to test and verify. To quote philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, whom creationist Dr. Duane Gish made the mistake of praising without bothering to read his entire article (a common creationist failing):
Larry Laudan:In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.
From "Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern" by Larry Laudan, from Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19, reprinted on pages 351-355 of Michael Ruse's But Is It Science. It refers to McLean v. Arkansas, the famous 1981 Creationism trial; my copy of the article provided to me by Dr. Duane Gish:
quote:At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact. Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.
In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.
The only reason for rejecting young-earth creationism is because the claims of creationism have been tested and have been found to fail those tests. In other words, that dog won't hunt.
Summary: Creationist claims (including claims of having evidence) have been tested and those claims have failed those tests.
So, if you creationists want your "evidence" to be taken seriously by science, you need to present it PROPERLY. Present it, publish it, support it, and have it tested through proper scientific peer review.
You know the rules. Play by them! Don't try to circumvent the system and pull the typical pseudo-science crap of complaining that you're "being silenced" that we hear from you [pl] constantly -- eg, Lisa Kudrow in the HBO mockumentary, Death to 2020:
When Fred Edwords (American Humanist Association) and Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research) appeared on the Los Angeles talk radio show, The Ray Briem Show (30 May 1985), Edwords pointed out that creationists don't publish, adding that a publisher he knows has been begging for articles from creationists, and Morris just repeated the standard bitch-and-moan of "it's a conspiracy; they refuse to publish us". Edwords summarized that not only won't creationists publish, but they refuse to even try.
Of course, Dr. Morris and other creationists refuse to publish because they know that their claims could not stand up under scrutiny; that is why they avoid actual discussion with scientists. As I recounted in Message 80 (20-Apr-2022):
In the foreword to his book on dating methods, The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple, research geologist at the United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, tells the story of when leading ICR creationists Drs. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering) and Duane Gish (PhD Biochemistry) came to USGS Menlo Park in 1975 to give an evening seminar on their case for creationism to several hundred USGS scientists.
Their presentation sparked a lot of discussion, most of which consisted of scientists who did understand the science trying to explain to Morris & Gish what thermodynamics really is and to help correct Morris & Gish's gross misunderstanding of the subject. Morris & Gish did learn from that encounter, but it was the wrong lesson: after that ICR creationists knew better than to ever discuss anything with actual scientists. Obviously, since actual scientists understand the science then they can see through creationist bullshit lies immediately.
But if you truly want your "evidence" to be considered, then you must present it. PUBLISH IT!Submit it for proper scientific debate. Which you refuse to do while you complain that you're "being silenced" (and are extremely loud about being "silenced"). And falsely complain of being deprived of the opportunity to debate when it is you who refuse to engage in that debate.
As I said, your "evidence" has already been considered and tested and rejected after having failed those tests. But if you truly want them to be considered again then you must resubmit them again in a proper manner. A weak vague claim will not do, but rather you must present it in as rigorous a manner as for any other scientific evidence.
Or is your only goal to deceive others with your phony complaints of prejudice? Since even you know that your "evidence" is nothing but crap.
How could you ever expect to convince us of anything when even you cannot take it serious enough to submit for actual debate?
"Besides, wasn't St. Augustine a Catholic? Candle3 hates Catholics! He will immediately reject anything a Catholic says."
*** I do not hate Catholics. I do not like their doctrines. I love everyone. Sometimes it is difficult, but God demands it.
I have stated that the lay members of the Catholic Church are deceived, just like you, Dwise, Percy, and others.
They will receive their opportunity for eternal life after their the resurrection. Those who might still be alive when Christ returns will receive their opportunity at that time.
None of us are above the others. The only difference is we are called at different times.
The clergy of the RCC are not deceived. And I hope that those who claim Darwinian evolution actually believe in what they are saying, because this would mean that they are deceive.
There are some evolutionists who deny the existence of God, even though they believe that He exists.
It is easy to become angry with God for some perceived wrong. Some deny Him because they believe that He did not answer them when they prayed for His help.
I have been through many of these situations in my life.
There was a time when I cursed Him bitterly. I swore that I would never love Him; in fact, that I hated Him.
God looks at the heart. He can judge an individual by their heart. He saw in my heart that I am wanted to love Him. I could not love Him until He showed me just who He was, and what He had planned for humanity.
"You are "criticizing" science for being able to do science, while creationism is bogged down by old bad ideas that it cannot shake off. You are truly the pot calling the silverware black."
***First of all, There are numerous scientists that believe in creation. But science is not capable of proving evolution or creation.
I hate to tell you this, because your ego seems to bruise quite easily. But you do not know one percent of all there is to know about the universe.
With your limited knowledge it is not possible for you to to know that God did not create the universe. You merely make assumptions based on your worldview.
With your limited knowledge it is not possible for you to know whether Adam and Eve were actual humans created by God or not. Science can't tell you the answer.
It is also impossible for atheists, with even the slightest bit of certainty, to tell someone who has access to God's Holy Spirit that God does not exist.
Re: The Same Old PRATTs Will Never Convince Anybody
OK, Candle3, now to start countering your latest load of bullshit (ie, Message 194 28-Mar-2025), first with your PRATTs.
Everything that you have ever posted here about "evolution" (whatever you mean by that word, which you refuse to tell us) has been a PRATT (Point Refuted AThousand Times). These are blatantly false claims that we have heard for many years (decades and even centuries), so we already know that they are false and exactly why they are false. Using PRATTs is an automatic non-starter. How could you ever hope to convince us solely through false claims that every one of us knows to be false?
PRATT:A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, and called a canard outside of this website, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with.
It is a common phrase on Internet forums, as debates have a tendency to go in circles — especially online. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again. It's a very common accusation levied at creationists, who are notoriously unimaginative in what they say. Coincidentally, PRATTs can usually be found coming from prats (British English for "idiots").
Examples of PRATTs
These assertions are mostly very easy to refute, but remain persistent arguments due to ignorance.
. . .
Percy has repeatedly asked you how you think you are going to convince anybody. Your persistent sole dependence on flimsy PRATT falsehoods (AKA lies) that everybody knows to be lies is clear and present proof that you have no intention of convincing us.
Since you are doing the exact opposite of trying to convince us, why are you even here?
Edited by dwise1, : Added link to the latest load of bullshit I'm referring to
Getting back to the topic, which is how to persuade, can you explain your rationale for employing a strategy of preaching your faith to those who don't share your particular brand of faith, or who don't apply faith in the way you do, or who do not share any faith-based viewpoint?
And perhaps you could explain what you find lacking in the proposed approach of first building trust?
The lesson that I think the rest of us are taking from your participation here is that Christianity doesn't make one a better person, the opposite in fact. Ignorance, intolerance, dogmatism and arrogance seem to be the effects of your brand of Christianity. Maybe it's time for another approach.
You're not the only one here making this mistake. The other participants, myself including, should be seeking to build some kind of rapport with you. Instead of pounding you post after post about getting on topic, I should be seeking to build an understanding of why you're doing things the way you are. And I would be more likely to do that were it not for the Forum Guidelines, which ask that members stay on topic.
"You are "criticizing" science for being able to do science, while creationism is bogged down by old bad ideas that it cannot shake off. You are truly the pot calling the silverware black."
***First of all, There are numerous scientists that believe in creation.
Of course. So what? How is that supposed to have anything at all to do with anything? What the hell are you talking about?
We have been over this several times already: there is no inherent conflict between science and religion (except when the religion creates a conflict, such as is the case with creationism).
You want to present creationists as being "scientists that believe in creation" while creationists are the exact opposite of scientists in almost every aspect possible. And for that matter, we already know that creationism seeks to disprove the Creation since the core position of creationism is that if the Creation is as it actually is then that would "disprove God" -- a really stupid position to take, but that's what creationists insist upon. And since there is no evidence from the Creation (which is what science provides) that could disprove the Creation, creationists have nothing else to work with than lies about the evidence, which we refer to as PRATTs (Pionts Refuted AThousand Times -- refer to my Message 207) and which are the only things that you ever post. To make matters even worse for you, we already know those PRATTs to be lies and we have known that for many years, even decades and centuries (speaking of society collectively, of course, so cool your literalist jets).
Your "point" about "scientists that believe in creation" is not only irrelevant but is also meaningless. But if you think that it is relevant, then explain why AND ENGAGE OPENLY AND HONESTLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION(IOW, support your assertion).
BTW, in a recent YouTube video of a call-in atheist show, Forrest Valkai presented the results of a poll about "belief in God" among scientists compared with the general population. It said that 41% of scientists believed in God, about half the percentage of the general population, while the percentage of scientists who didn't was about double that of the general population (as I recall).
My personal suspicion explaining that is that many believers use God as a "God of the Gaps" to explain away what they don't know. Personally, I consider that to be a really stupid misuse of a god, but that is what we see creationists and IDiots doing all the time (eg, "Gee, I can't explain that so 'goddidit'."). Even ID co-founder, lawyer Phillip Johnson, said in an essay that his reason for opposing evolution is because "it leaves God with nothing to do." Like I say, a really stupid misuse of a god.
And OBTW, this pervasive inclination of many to use the gods as "Gods of the Gap" to explain things as well as the long history of that practice (eg, Zeus and Thor to explain lightning and thunder) is one of the reasons for the faulty assumption that "science is trying to disprove God". Well, science certainly does disprove the "God of the Gaps", but isn't God supposed to be far more than that?
"God of the Gaps" is a guaranteed loser of a position! It is way past high time for believers to put their god(s) to better use than that!
But science is not capable of proving evolution or creation.
Of course science is incapable to proving or disproving the supernatural. That's what we've been telling you all along!
As for "proving evolution", we have no idea what you are talking about. That's why we keep asking you that question, "What are you talking about?", but you keep running away from it.
And yet again you betray your ignorance of science: science is not about proving anything. We have explained that to you far too many times, so I won't waste my carpal tunnel repeating it here (plus I need to get to bed). Add to that the fact that what you call "evolution" has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, but yet again you refuse to tell us what you are talking about.
However, evolution (actual evolution, not your stupid strawman) is a very well developed scientific discipline that is very well supported by the evidence. It comes about as close to "proven" as anything could be in science.
... you do not know one percent of all there is to know about the universe.
Of course I don't. I am human after all, as are you:
Bumper Sticker:MILITANT AGNOSTIC:
I don't know ... AND NEITHER DO YOU!
Yes, I am ignorant of many things, but you are also ignorant and of far more things that I am. Again, you are the pot calling the silverware black. (think about that again, since I'm sure it went right over your head)
There's also the well-known joke:
Joke:Two friends, Bill and Ted, staying in a mountain cabin are awakened by the sounds of a bear breaking into the cabin to kill them. As Bill is about to start running for his life, he sees Ted putting on his running shoes:
Bill: Are you crazy? You can't outrun a bear! Ted: I don't have to. I only need to outrun you.
Same thing applies when everybody's speeding but you're the one who gets pulled over and ticketed because you're the slowest of the speeders: "Everybody else is driving faster than me; why don't you arrest them?" "Because you're the first one I was able to catch."
What you said of my own ignorance also applies to your own ignorance. And while we are both very ignorant of all that there is to know, one of us is still more ignorant than the other. While neither of us is faster than that bear, one of us is still faster than the other.
I have no doubt that there are subjects in which you are much more knowledgeable than I am, but unfortunately none of them have any bearing on this discussion. The subjects that are pertinent include science, biology, evolution, creationism, and even religion, all of which you have displayed considerable ignorance of, abject ignorance even.
While I could not be considered a subject matter expert myself, my knowledge of those subjects does still far exceed yours. Applying the bear attack analogy, I can outrun you by a very wide margin. I and everybody else here have repeatedly tried to help you keep up, but you steadfastly refuse that much needed help.
The most ironic object of your profound ignorance is creationism. It appears that all you "know" about it is what your preacher has told you and what you've found on the Web. I would describe your level of knowledge to be only "a-quick-Google deep" in that you appear to do no more than to Google and then copy-and-paste without even bothering to read what you're copying, let alone try to understand it -- an example was when you accused Democrats of trying to take everybody's rights away based solely on the title of a Jen Psaki video in which she was undoubtedly reporting on Republican/MAGAt anti-civil-rights efforts, something you would have realized if only you had bothered to watch the video.
At most, your only knowledge of creationism and creationist claims lies in memorizing them so that you can regurgitate the claims on demand. It's like the sleep-learning section of Aldous Huxley's book, Brave New World Revisited (1958), which described experiments with sleep-learning which resulted in the "students" being able to recite the lesson verbatim (when triggered by a keyword) but were completely unable to answer any questions about the content. IOW, it was nothing more than a conditioned response and no actual learning had taken place.
That's you. You can recite creationist claims verbatim, but you know nothing about them and cannot answer even the simplest of questions about them. Neither can most creationist I have encountered online in the past forty years. You creationists simply do not know what you are talking about.
OTOH, we DO know a lot about creationism. We have studied it for years -- since 1981, for 45 years, in my case. We not only know the claims themselves, but we also know what they're based on, why they are false (and what they get wrong), and often even their history of creation, use, and refutation. IOW, we not only know that creationist claims are PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) but also why they are PRATTS and how they were refuted. We also know the overall strategy of creationism (The Two Model Approach which I have covered in this topic in Message 44, Message 96, Message 151, Message 156, Message 163), how creationists use it all the time, and what's wrong with it. As per Sun Tzu, we know our enemy.
In sharp contrast, you creationists know none of that. Ignoring Sun Tzu's advice, you do not know yourself:
Sun Tzu:Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963.
You do not know "the enemy" and you do not know yourself. You are in constant peril.
With your limited knowledge it is not possible for you to to know that God did not create the universe.
Of course not, but why is that supposed to matter?
With your limited knowledge, it is not possible for you to know that Coyote did not create the universe.
So what?
Regardless of who created the universe or even if anyone had created it, the universe still exists. And it still functions in the same manner as it would regardless of how it got here.
You merely make assumptions based on your worldview.
. . .
It is also impossible for atheists, with even the slightest bit of certainty, to tell someone who has access to God's Holy Spirit that God does not exist.
You're projecting again. YOU are the one merely making assumption based on your worldview.
Plus you have the unmitigated gall and arrogance to assume that you are the only one who's assumptions about things that no mere mortal could have such intimate knowledge as you claim to possess could possibly possess.
No human is capable of perceiving the supernatural nor actually know anything about it. Everything that humans "know" about the supernatural, including the gods, has been made up.
There have been about 288,000 gods in human existence. What makes you think that you have somehow stumbled upon the one true god? Or even that there is only one. BTW, do you know the difference between montheism (only one god exists) and henotheism (multiple gods exist, but you worship only one)? What are the odds of you having done that?
There are about 45,000 forms of Christianity, about 200 in the USA alone. If only one can be right and all the others wrong, what makes you thing that you have somehow stumbled upon the one true form of Christianity? What are the odds of that?
You know your version is the one true one because you were "guided by the Holy Spirit"? Yeah, right. So were the followers of all the other 44,999 forms of Christianity. An ex-Mormon atheist at our monthly brunches used to believe the same thing, but then one day in a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness that JW also claimed that exact same certainty based on having been guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit were doing its job, then there shouldn't be 45,000 different versions of Christianity, should there?
Personal Experience:
A German co-worker brought some Schnapps distilled by his uncle on the farm. After pouring some out for everyone to sample, he emphasized the importance of resealing the bottle, "Sonst fliegt der Geist ab!" ("Otherwise the spirit will fly away!"), IOW the alcohol would evaporate.
BTW, the bottle was of the old pre-bottle-cap resealable style called in English, "flip-top". In German it's called a Bügelverschluss. I think you can buy them in Ikea.
If you want to claim that your particular god is the only one, then you need to prove that. Until then, we are fully justified in remaining skeptical of your claim and of every other claim about all the other versions of all the other gods. I figure that the probability of you being right is about 1 in 12.960 billion (American billion, 109).
™ Version 4.2
(1)
