Jump to content


Can You Distinguish Between Different Supernatural Origins?


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#81 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:18 PM

That's all very well, but if not by scientific means, what are the means you yourself have used to convince yourself of the truth of your beliefs?

View Post


Why do you want to shift this to my beliefs? You already know what I believe and how I get there. I want to know how you determine what you believe. Why do you want to change the subject?

By the way, I find it amusing that the person in the above quote finds it okay to come to conclusions on a scientific investigations of how a fire happened, while not allowing that the same types of methods have been used to see whether evolution happened.

View Post


Oh, that's wrong. Those are exactly the methods that we use to see if evolution happened. The difference between our evidence and your evidence is that ours is all the evidence not just cherry picked and distorted evidence to tell a fairytale as fact.

#82 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:21 PM

You don't have to engage in this dialogue.


View Post



You're right, I don't have to engage in this dialogue. But since you invited me here, I thought I'd do the polite thing and not just ignore your invitation.

#83 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:28 PM

Adam 777,

There's something you want from me that you're just not getting.  What question of yours have I failed to answer?

View Post


This is the roadblock.

You want so badly for people to believe evolution. Atheists want badly to show that evolution is the understanding that removes a need for a maker.

However, when someone asks for your methods they are kept hidden. You haven't showed me how you determine truth yet.

You've shared with me what it is that you believe and I already knew these things but your methods and standards either don't exist or you don't want to talk about it.

You and Shpongle should maybe PM back and forth a little and see if the two of you have any agreement on what arriving at truth looks like and is it even something that's obtainable in any objective sense.

#84 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:28 PM

The difference between our evidence and your evidence is that ours is all the evidence not just cherry picked and distorted evidence to tell a fairytale as fact.

View Post


Believe that all you want. I have yet to see a single creationists explain why evolution is an applied science and why there are no scientific applications of creationism.

#85 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:32 PM

Why do you want to shift this to my beliefs? You already know what I believe and how I get there. I want to know how you determine what you believe. Why do you want to change the subject?


I believe I already answered this:

I suppose I believe it for much the same reasons you believe what you do:  because after much thought and soul-searching, that is what seems to be most true, to me.


Oh, that's wrong. Those are exactly the methods that we use to see if evolution happened. The difference between our evidence and your evidence is that ours is all the evidence not just cherry picked and distorted evidence to tell a fairytale as fact.

View Post


So you're saying, the scientific method is fine when used for advancing medical technology, computer technology, or finding out whether a fire was caused by arson, or who murdered Mr. X, but we can't use it for anything that may challenge the literal interpretation of the Bible? Okay, got it!

And, yet again, we have this vast conspiracy of scientists, some of whom consider themselves theists, some of whom are devout Christians, and they are just cherry-picking and distorting the facts because, well, they are just so invested in evolution being true . . .

#86 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:37 PM

You're right, I don't have to engage in this dialogue.  But since you invited me here, I thought I'd do the polite thing and not just ignore your invitation.

View Post


I've enjoyed the dialogue but please don't try to make me feel guilty for how I'm approaching this conversation. It won't work. I won't harass you if you decide to back out. I didn't chase you down for that one thread...

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1887

...and I won't harass you for answers here either.

Remember how Occam chased me around. I wouldn't dare do that to you, I promise.

When you invited me to FRDB, I had I chance to look closely at what you believe, by inviting you here, I'm returning the favor. You can stay or go. I would rather you stay but that's not my choice or you can just check in on what your little brother is saying from time to time, it’s up to you.

#87 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:40 PM

This is the roadblock.

You want so badly for people to believe evolution. Atheists want badly to show that evolution is the understanding that removes a need for a maker.

However, when someone asks for your methods they are kept hidden. You haven't showed me how you determine truth yet.

You've shared with me what it is that you believe and I already knew these things but your methods and standards either don't exist or you don't want to talk about it.

You and Shpongle should maybe PM back and forth a little and see if the two of you have any agreement on what arriving at truth looks like and is it even something that's obtainable in any objective sense.

View Post



So maybe you could ask the question? Or if you have some guesses about why I believe what I do, maybe you could tell me what they are? That way I can see what you're getting at. Because I'm honestly in the dark right now, and I don't think PMing any other posters will turn on any lightbulbs for me.

You keep accusing me of keeping things hidden from you, but if I am, it's not intentional, I'm really very confused right now.

#88 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:43 PM

So you're saying, the scientific method is fine when used for advancing medical technology, computer technology, or finding out whether a fire was caused by arson, or who murdered Mr. X, but we can't use it for anything that may challenge the literal interpretation of the Bible?  Okay, got it!

View Post


I would, but I'll let someone else handle this one. <_<

And, yet again, we have this vast conspiracy of scientists, some of whom consider themselves theists, some of whom are devout Christians, and they are just cherry-picking and distorting the facts because, well, they are just so invested in evolution being true . . .

View Post


I just mentioned the thread that pertains to that odd concept. If you wish to engage, it’s waiting:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1887

#89 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:56 PM

So maybe you could ask the question?

View Post


Instead of going around in circles, this post lays out what I'm looking for. I think I even clarify a bit afterwards in other posts. I’m not sure how to reword it any better:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=21432

If you don't understand why I insist that this hasn't been satisfied, let's just let it go for a while. I'll let you ponder it…that is if you’d like to.

#90 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 05:10 PM

Believe that all you want.  I have yet to see a single creationists explain why evolution is an applied science and why there are no scientific applications of creationism.

View Post


Shpongle, the case has been laid out before you. I hope someday you see it, even if you refuse to believe it. Did you ever hear of chronological snobbery? Please don't misunderstand me because I'm just as guilty of it too.

It's something that C.S. Lewis coined and it was adopted as a logical fallacy. Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia....ogical_snobbery

Here's a quote:

C.S. Lewis - Barfield never made me an Anthroposophist, but his counterattacks destroyed forever two elements in my own thought. In the first place he made short work of what I have called my "chronological snobbery," the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also "a period," and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.



It’s easy to think that the present age is the one most obviously free of biases and false pretensions but what period of man hasn’t thought that way?

This is my favorite C.S. Lewis quote. It runs across my computer screen as my screen saver:

"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."

#91 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2008 - 05:32 PM

Shpongle, the case has been laid out before you. I hope someday you see it, even if you refuse to believe it.


I hate to disappoint you, but based on everything I've seen with respect to evolutionary biology and how it is used in real world science, I don't think I'm going to up and abandon that idea any time soon. Until creationists can demonstrate superior application of their own ideas with respect to biology, I find arguments that evolutionists are "cherry picking" from the evidence to be rather thin.

I also don't think I'll ever be a Christian either, but that has less to do with evolution and more to do with the fact I think Christian theology is fundamentally illogical. But that's just me.

Like others, I just have to be honest with myself and what I believe. And that's what's got me to where I am and what I stand for.

#92 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 08 December 2008 - 05:52 PM

Like others, I just have to be honest with myself and what I believe.  And that's what's got me to where I am and what I stand for.

View Post



I agree with this statement. Implying that this is not enough of a reason for our underlying naturalistic philosophy makes us what? Deluded? Irrational?

#93 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 08 December 2008 - 06:15 PM

Adam 777, you said:


I just mentioned the thread that pertains to that odd concept. If you wish to engage, it’s waiting:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1887


Somehow, that thread you so thoughtfully started for me never really appealed to me. I think I'll start my own thread about this topic.

Here:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1892




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users