Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On being ill-informed
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 31 of 54 (4129)
02-11-2002 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by toff
02-11-2002 9:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I've seen some really awful ones along these lines. For instance, I was trying to explain plate tectonics to a creationist. After a while, I realized he thought that we 'evolutionists' were claiming that continents float in the ocean like leaves."
--You obviously need to talk to another creationist, hehe, whoever it was you were talking to hasent a clue about Earth/Marine Geology and Plate Tectonics. You see much of this around because they are simply trying to say something you arent interested in.

He sees much of it around because there IS much of it around. Creationists are, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.

eat me toff, seriously eat me.....
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:27 AM toff has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 54 (4157)
02-11-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by toff
02-11-2002 3:56 AM


"Sorry, TrueCreation, I don't think you understand the issue here."
--Lets see then, I only went from what I read.
"Even a cursory examination of my original post will reveal that when I made the quoted statement, I had not even mentioned creationists."
--Really? As I stated, you emphesise on who your talking to directly in the next sentance.
quote:
The problem is that the flip-side of the above is what we see here constantly. Creationists constantly reveal by their questions and statements that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory
"How it could be taken that the statement is directed at them I have no idea"
--Why did you make such a statement directly afterwords?
"It was a general statement, true of evolution, nuclear physics, religion, politics, and any other subject I can think of."
--I would doubt if this is what you meant when you were writting it, but I'm glad you restated so that it isn't as offensive.
"This one I don't even understand. Apparently I'm charged with using the word 'they' interchangably with 'creationists'. Yet in the quoted sentence, I don't use the word 'they' at all."
--Please forgive my missaccusation on this, I see you didn't use the word 'they', but you do explain that you do mean creationists directly afterword.
"Oops, sorry, wrong. I did not accuse creationists in general as 'without knowledge whatsoever'. I accused them of knowing virtually nothing about evolutionary theory, and I stand by that accusation."
--I said 'there-after', so refer to your next statment. I was making relevance toward you accusing us of complete laack of knowledge about evolutionary theory.
quote:
questions that reveal only their virtually complete lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory.
"Perhaps out there somewhere are legions of creationists who know a great deal about evolutionary theory. I've never encountered one."
--Ask me a question then, also note, that there are many theories asssociated with mechenisms for Evolutionary explinations.
"I can see no valid reason for bringing out a question that is, in and of itself, erroneous."
--I would ask a question out of frustration because it seems as you go throughout the debate, you can tell that the opposing debator usually slowely sways into a different perspect because of previous informity. Or you would ask them a question like 'How did life get here in the first place' (Not in this wording) to actually see what it is you have to try and argue with, as sometimes arguments get vage and it turns into something like 'no you still don't understand' or 'no you need to do prove it wrong' or something of that nature. So then you need the very basics, otherwize you may start rumbling a bunch of stuff that doesn't matter, or they will change it without informing so it seems as if the opposing debater looks like he is trailing off subject or all of his accusations are irrelevant becase 'so and so' is what we are discussing. I find much of this around so I do seldom ask questions of this like.
"To do so reveals nothing but your ignorance of the topic at hand, as did my 'questions' and 'statements' about christianity, in my example in my original post."
--Ignorance is what wrote those 'either or' statments, your options are confined to your own conjector.
"Again, sorry, not doing what you accuse me of. Accusing (read the sentence) 'people who constantly ask questions like this'. If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?"
--You wouldn't have been if you didn't make your statments so general, that is, you accused 'creationists' not John Paul or Cobra_Snake or John Baumgardner the other creationists around the forums.
"Sorry, again. The quote above is precisely the debate - 'why do creationists attempt to discuss/dismiss a theory about which they know virtually nothing'. The debate isn't 'do creationists know virtually nothing about evolution' - that is a given."
--If this is so true, then why bother to debate? If it is a given, you have already conclude the debate without starting it. Also, I do not at all dismiss a theory revolving around evolution.
"And just a word about generalisations, making them of which I have been accused by TrueChristian and KingPenguin. Yes, I, like virtually everyone, make generalisations."
--Ok, but as is evident from what you said earlier, 'If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?
', you should be attentive to what your generalization sustatins.
"Generalisations, in and of themselves, are not bad, even in a debate forum like this. The question is only whether or not they are accurate. If I were to state 'men are taller than women', I would get few arguments, despite its being a generalisation."
--Yes but your argument is using your analogy 'men are taller than women, thus men are smarter'. Your generalization accused creationists of not knowing knowledge on evolution theory, ie, you accused us of not knowing this because we are creationists.
"If I were to state 'men are better political leaders' than women, I would get many more arguments - but not because it's a generalisation. Because it's a generalisation that many would disagree with. So don't just chant 'generalisation' and think you've defeated the point; try actually debating what was said, what opinions were put forward, rather than ignoring something because it was a generalisation."
--Restate the question, without it being so offensive, ie, accusing creationists of not knowing anything on evolution. Mabye you should also be more specific, as I really don't know what to respond to.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 3:56 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 2:14 AM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 54 (4158)
02-11-2002 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by toff
02-11-2002 9:27 AM


"He sees much of it around because there IS much of it around. Creationists are, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular."
--There you go again, I sustain my argument against your assertion, unless you can make it a little more reasonable (I would advise a new argument actually), creationists are not 'as a rule', 'pethetically ignorant of science in general', nore are we ignorant of 'evolutionary theory in particular', If you wan't to direct this towards someone else be my guest, then it won't be so generalized and ignorantly proposed.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:27 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 2:17 AM TrueCreation has replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 54 (4191)
02-12-2002 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
02-11-2002 7:40 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"Sorry, TrueCreation, I don't think you understand the issue here."
--Lets see then, I only went from what I read. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[/b]
Apparently not. You were much more eager to read things INTO it that weren't there than to actually go on what WAS there.
[b] [QUOTE] "Even a cursory examination of my original post will reveal that when I made the quoted statement, I had not even mentioned creationists."
--Really? As I stated, you emphesise on who your talking to directly in the next sentance.
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, I do not. The next sentence is even a different paragraph, showing the two are unrelated. Your conclusion is unsupported, and more than a little paranoid.
[b] [QUOTE] "Perhaps out there somewhere are legions of creationists who know a great deal about evolutionary theory. I've never encountered one."
--Ask me a question then, also note, that there are many theories asssociated with mechenisms for Evolutionary explinations.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I have no idea what the fact that "there are many theories..." has to do with this.
[b] [QUOTE] "I can see no valid reason for bringing out a question that is, in and of itself, erroneous."
--I would ask a question out of frustration because it seems as you go throughout the debate, you can tell that the opposing debator usually slowely sways into a different perspect because of previous informity. Or you would ask them a question like 'How did life get here in the first place' (Not in this wording) to actually see what it is you have to try and argue with, as sometimes arguments get vage and it turns into something like 'no you still don't understand' or 'no you need to do prove it wrong' or something of that nature. So then you need the very basics, otherwize you may start rumbling a bunch of stuff that doesn't matter, or they will change it without informing so it seems as if the opposing debater looks like he is trailing off subject or all of his accusations are irrelevant becase 'so and so' is what we are discussing. I find much of this around so I do seldom ask questions of this like.
[/b][/QUOTE]
If you seldom ask questions of this kind, why are you defending it. To ask misleading questions or questions that are in themselves erroneous is simply poor debating.
[b] [QUOTE] "To do so reveals nothing but your ignorance of the topic at hand, as did my 'questions' and 'statements' about christianity, in my example in my original post."
--Ignorance is what wrote those 'either or' statments, your options are confined to your own conjector.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I have no idea what this means.
[b] [QUOTE] "Again, sorry, not doing what you accuse me of. Accusing (read the sentence) 'people who constantly ask questions like this'. If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?"
--You wouldn't have been if you didn't make your statments so general, that is, you accused 'creationists' not John Paul or Cobra_Snake or John Baumgardner the other creationists around the forums.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Once again, read the sentence. I am accusing 'people who constantly ask questions like this'. Not creationists. Not you, or the other people you name. I am accusing anyone who constantly asks questions like this - not all creationists. Once again, you attempt to read more into a statement than is there.
[b] [QUOTE] "Sorry, again. The quote above is precisely the debate - 'why do creationists attempt to discuss/dismiss a theory about which they know virtually nothing'. The debate isn't 'do creationists know virtually nothing about evolution' - that is a given."
--If this is so true, then why bother to debate? If it is a given, you have already conclude the debate without starting it. Also, I do not at all dismiss a theory revolving around evolution.
[/b][/QUOTE]
You miss the point. The debate is not about 'do creationists know virtually nothing about evolution'. The debate is 'why do creationists who know nothing about evolution insist on debating the topic'? I have not concluded the debate; I have asked a question, around which the debate revolves. Nor have I in the least answered it myself. That creationists as a rule know virtually nothing about evolution is a given; that is NOT what the debate is about.
[b] [QUOTE] "And just a word about generalisations, making them of which I have been accused by TrueChristian and KingPenguin. Yes, I, like virtually everyone, make generalisations."
--Ok, but as is evident from what you said earlier, 'If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?
', you should be attentive to what your generalization sustatins.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I am attentive to what my generalisations sustain. That statement ('If you're not one of those people, then I'm not accusing you in that sentence, am I?' is obvious. The generalisation I made there was about people who ask a certain type of question. If you don't do that, then the generalisation doesn't cover you. Surely that's obvious?
[b] [QUOTE] "Generalisations, in and of themselves, are not bad, even in a debate forum like this. The question is only whether or not they are accurate. If I were to state 'men are taller than women', I would get few arguments, despite its being a generalisation."
--Yes but your argument is using your analogy 'men are taller than women, thus men are smarter'. Your generalization accused creationists of not knowing knowledge on evolution theory, ie, you accused us of not knowing this because we are creationists.
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, my argument (using my analogy) had nothing to do with 'men are taller than women, thus men are smarter.' Intelligence (smartness) wasn't even mentioned. You say 'your generalisation accused creationists of not knowing knowledge on evolution theory' - WHICH generalisation. And I at no stage accused you of not knowing this because you are creationists - rather, the reverse is true. If you understood evolutionary theory, I suspect you would cease to be creationists.
[b] [QUOTE] "If I were to state 'men are better political leaders' than women, I would get many more arguments - but not because it's a generalisation. Because it's a generalisation that many would disagree with. So don't just chant 'generalisation' and think you've defeated the point; try actually debating what was said, what opinions were put forward, rather than ignoring something because it was a generalisation."
--Restate the question, without it being so offensive, ie, accusing creationists of not knowing anything on evolution. Mabye you should also be more specific, as I really don't know what to respond to.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Restate WHAT question? There is no question in the quoted paragraph.
And for someone who doesn't know what to respond to, you're doing an awful lot of responding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 7:40 PM TrueCreation has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 54 (4192)
02-12-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TrueCreation
02-11-2002 7:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--There you go again, I sustain my argument against your assertion, unless you can make it a little more reasonable (I would advise a new argument actually), creationists are not 'as a rule', 'pethetically ignorant of science in general', nore are we ignorant of 'evolutionary theory in particular', If you wan't to direct this towards someone else be my guest, then it won't be so generalized and ignorantly proposed.

Umm....WHAT argument? As far as I can see, you haven't made one. You've just complained about any number of peripheral points, without addressing my actual question. And, sorry, but, as I say, according to my (fairly wide, stretching across multiple levels of society and many types of christians, creationists ARE, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 7:45 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:14 PM toff has replied
 Message 43 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:42 PM toff has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 36 of 54 (4292)
02-12-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by toff
02-12-2002 2:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--There you go again, I sustain my argument against your assertion, unless you can make it a little more reasonable (I would advise a new argument actually), creationists are not 'as a rule', 'pethetically ignorant of science in general', nore are we ignorant of 'evolutionary theory in particular', If you wan't to direct this towards someone else be my guest, then it won't be so generalized and ignorantly proposed.

Umm....WHAT argument? As far as I can see, you haven't made one. You've just complained about any number of peripheral points, without addressing my actual question. And, sorry, but, as I say, according to my (fairly wide, stretching across multiple levels of society and many types of christians, creationists ARE, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.

you have got to be the dumbest living person alive, toff. you just complained to and didnt give your all powerful proof behind your accusations. anymore of this bull and ill just stop responding to your mindless, arrogant, ignorant, good for nothing, idiotic, inbred posts. sorry to all those were offended (excluding toff of course).
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 2:17 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by toff, posted 02-13-2002 6:06 AM KingPenguin has replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 54 (4372)
02-13-2002 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 6:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you have got to be the dumbest living person alive, toff. you just complained to and didnt give your all powerful proof behind your accusations. anymore of this bull and ill just stop responding to your mindless, arrogant, ignorant, good for nothing, idiotic, inbred posts. sorry to all those were offended (excluding toff of course).

Always nice to see a 'loving christian' reveal his true colours. Unable to debate, he relies instead on insult and ad hominem. How sad...and what a wonderful witness for his alleged god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:14 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:59 PM toff has replied
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:44 PM toff has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 38 of 54 (4406)
02-13-2002 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by toff
02-13-2002 6:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
Always nice to see a 'loving christian' reveal his true colours. Unable to debate, he relies instead on insult and ad hominem. How sad...and what a wonderful witness for his alleged god.
i was being sarcastic of course and whenever you debate and proven wrong you can just change the mechanisms of the theory and make it correct. theres no ground to gained for either of us. i never said i was loving or christian either. i said i was faithful believer of Christ and that i believed the bible but i was not a creationist, since i dont see much purpose in science other than to understand God better.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by toff, posted 02-13-2002 6:06 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by joz, posted 02-13-2002 4:09 PM KingPenguin has replied
 Message 46 by toff, posted 02-14-2002 2:24 AM KingPenguin has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 54 (4407)
02-13-2002 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 3:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
I never said i was loving or christian either. i said i was faithful believer of Christ and that i believed the bible but i was not a creationist....
Interesting how can you not be a christian and yet still be a "faithfull believer of christ"....
Trust me bud given the content of your posts to these boards you are a creationist....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:59 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 4:13 PM joz has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 40 of 54 (4409)
02-13-2002 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by joz
02-13-2002 4:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Interesting how can you not be a christian and yet still be a "faithfull believer of christ"....
Trust me bud given the content of your posts to these boards you are a creationist....

im not a strong supporter of religion, thats why i dont consider myself christian and i dont believe much of either side of the creation/evolution debate.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by joz, posted 02-13-2002 4:09 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:35 PM KingPenguin has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 54 (4414)
02-13-2002 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-08-2002 3:13 AM


I will go through your post once again, this time I will be less observant towards an ill-informity even on your own part, as I see that you think that we simply can't answer it or something of that nature.
"Now, would you not think something like "Uh-oh, here's a person who knows virtually nothing about christianity, who has heard a few half-truths somewhere, got those wrong, and is obviously biased against it."?"
--No doubt.
"And wuold you not reply with something like "I suggest you do a little research on what the bible actually says, and what christianity actually believes. Your 'facts' are completely wrong. You should not attempt to discuss matters about which you obviously know nothing."?"
--Something along those lines, and then I would address his obvious missunderstanding, I find that calms most people die from such an address to the forums.
"I suggest that your thoughts and reply would be something very like the above, and quite rightly. Persons who know nothing or virtually nothing about a topic should not attempt to debate that topic, nor are they qualified to hold opinions about it."
--With a response like you stated from the unknowledgable skeptic, I don't think that he/she would not be allowed to hold in such a debate. To hold a qualification for a debate I would have to say someone must have simple conceptual understanding, Ie, knows a little bit about Noah and his boat, and theories for the Flood. Likewize to know about the theoretical implications of mechenisms for Evolution, that is, if you wish to attain a quallification for biological debate. Though I would have to say anyone with these basic knowledgable concepts should be freely allowed to debate, as long as they do not come in with bias, ignorance, sarcasm, within the debating style that would be recognized through a post as you stated above. Debate in these forums should be intelligent and formalistic, its not all about what you know, its more about what you are willing to learn, thus opinions are no problem on this level.
"The problem is that the flip-side of the above is what we see here constantly. Creationists constantly reveal by their questions and statements that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory, yet they presume to debate it and dismiss it."
--I will have to say there are one or two dud's walking around as creationists to put simply, making creationism and even science look bad. I would also hold false to the assertion that 'they presume to debate it and dismiss it', as if this is centered toward Evolutionary theory, it is in no way easilly dismissed, nor have I myself found reason to dismiss it as impossible, but on my own humble opinion, I dismiss it in its entirety as improbable by opinion, but I still don't dismiss the debate for two reasons. I simply am entertained by the debate, not because it is funny, because it is interesting and a place where knowledge is found floating all around. The other reason being because I simply love to learn and gain experience in this field.
"They bring out the hackneyed questions like "If we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still around?", "How did life get here in the first place?" - questions that reveal only their virtually complete lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory."
--To say the least, I have never seen these questions proposed in such a way, I believe I saw that 'if we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still around?' one, I proposed the 'How did life get here in the first place' but I put it more like 'What is your mechenism for the upbringing of life in the first place'. This doe snot reveal complete lack of knowledge about Evolutionary theory.
"People who constantly ask questions like this (and others) obviously have got hold of a few half-truths (possibly from creationist web-sites, Jack Chick tracts, or the like), got them wrong, and think they actually know something about the topic."
--For one, this again does not show that they 'obviously have got hold of a few half-truths'. As me myself used to get confused to what the mechenisms for different things were as different organizations propose them differently. This does not say that creationists 'think they actually know something about the topic'.
"Why are there so few (I have yet to see one) creationists who are actually knowledgable about evolutionary theory, and why do so many creationists who know virtually nothing about it feel free to discuss and dismiss it? Surely even they will agree this is not a reasonable position?"
--I will again say that there are duds scrolling around in these debates and posting some rather obtuse questions and answers. Also, If your going to say that creationists don't know about Evolutionary theory, you should next time, try and back it up with some sort of example.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 3:13 AM toff has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 54 (4415)
02-13-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 4:13 PM


"im not a strong supporter of religion, thats why i dont consider myself christian and i dont believe much of either side of the creation/evolution debate."
--For one, Jesus himself hated religion, its one of the only things that made him angry in his life.
--Second, what is it about Creation don't you accept, I believe we've heard what you don't accept about Evolution.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 4:13 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 12:25 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 47 by toff, posted 02-14-2002 2:29 AM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 54 (4418)
02-13-2002 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by toff
02-12-2002 2:17 AM


"Umm....WHAT argument?"
--The one that asserts that 'Creationists are, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular'. You have yet to produce a reason and examples to support your reason.
"As far as I can see, you haven't made one."
--Thats because I didn't start one.
"You've just complained about any number of peripheral points, without addressing my actual question."
--I replied to your post in this way 2 posts of mine ago, we can carry on there.
"And, sorry, but, as I say, according to my (fairly wide, stretching across multiple levels of society and many types of christians, creationists ARE, as a rule, pathetically ignorant of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular."
--Thats odd, I could almost say the same for Evolutionists against creationism. Why is it that I see alot of this in the debates, and for some reason it makes no relevance in the least being an assertion in its nature. This is the problem you make an assertion like this, and expect an answer to follow it. this is very simmilar to someone asserting your example here:
quote:
"Christianity is nonsense! All their beliefs are stupid! How can anyone believe the things in the bible? How can you believe that Adam and Eve killed their own son? How can you believe that a flood that lasted for only four days killed everything on the earth except for those in the ark? How can you believe that Moses led his people around and around in the desert, trying to find Egypt? Why didn't he just ask someone? How can you believe the teachings of a man who married a prostitute, like Jesus did?"
So I guess my response would follow somewhat along the lines of this:
quote:
Uh-oh, here's a person who knows virtually nothing about christianity, who has heard a few half-truths somewhere, got those wrong, and is obviously biased against it.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 2:17 AM toff has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 54 (4419)
02-13-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by toff
02-13-2002 6:06 AM


"Always nice to see a 'loving christian' reveal his true colours. Unable to debate, he relies instead on insult and ad hominem. How sad...and what a wonderful witness for his alleged god."
--I'm not going to address KingPenguin's wording but he did give you the problem in this sentance:
quote:
you just complained to and didnt give your all powerful proof behind your accusations.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by toff, posted 02-13-2002 6:06 AM toff has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 45 of 54 (4467)
02-14-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 4:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"im not a strong supporter of religion, thats why i dont consider myself christian and i dont believe much of either side of the creation/evolution debate."
--For one, Jesus himself hated religion, its one of the only things that made him angry in his life.
--Second, what is it about Creation don't you accept, I believe we've heard what you don't accept about Evolution.

well i just think that creation takes the bible to literally and tries to use it as history guide, which it isnt. it just gives you an understanding of how things occur and what and who were the forces and reasons behind them.
on a funny note im in like three different religion youth groups: baptist, lutheran, and assembly of god; and i just thinks it stupid how they usually say theyre theyre the only ones that are right and that they are the true religion. lutheran is what i can stand the most though because in my church we arent forced into anything and they dont tell us what to believe, they still however instruct us on how we should live and thats what they should be doing. i still dont enjoy religion nearly as much as i enjoy faith and love of christ and from christ. society has however made me doubtful of my own existence in any form; im not sure if im actually here anymore.
any thoughts?
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 4:35 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 4:18 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024