- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Phew, thanks. I was thinking the world had gone topsy-turvy for a minute there.
Quote However, many a good discovery started as a hunch, so I remain open minded to any number of possibilities and I like to listen to what people think. That is how we learn after all. But being closed minded makes us arrogant and eventually foolish because you can't learn when you close yourself off to possibilities, especially if it turns out to be right. …except when it comes to evolution by natural selection?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 04 2009,22:29) Phew, thanks. I was thinking the world had gone topsy-turvy for a minute there. Quote However, many a good discovery started as a hunch, so I remain open minded to any number of possibilities and I like to listen to what people think. That is how we learn after all. But being closed minded makes us arrogant and eventually foolish because you can't learn when you close yourself off to possibilities, especially if it turns out to be right. …except when it comes to evolution by natural selection?
Stuart
Therefore, Stu is close minded to the possibility of the creation account. Yet the world has gone “topsy-turvy” when others are close minded to his views.thinker
Quote (Stu @ May 04 2009,22:29) Phew, thanks. I was thinking the world had gone topsy-turvy for a minute there. Quote However, many a good discovery started as a hunch, so I remain open minded to any number of possibilities and I like to listen to what people think. That is how we learn after all. But being closed minded makes us arrogant and eventually foolish because you can't learn when you close yourself off to possibilities, especially if it turns out to be right. …except when it comes to evolution by natural selection?
Stuart
I was an avid promoter of Evolution once. It is the best theory round when you don't believe in God.Today, I do not believe much of it. I can accept parts of it, but not the prevailing assumption that says no creator was involved at any point. I understand that a clever creator can automate much of the processes and evolution may have touched on some of these processes. But I can now see that a creator is required at some points especially the beginning. I absolutely cannot accept that nothing did it all. I now see how foolish such a thought was and how much bias played a part in what I believed then.
I am trying to figure out which ape avatar looks the most intelligent.
I think it might be thethinker coz Stu's cranium looks the smallest and his mouth is also the biggest in proportion to the back of the skull.
Quote (thethinker @ May 05 2009,08:01) Quote (Stu @ May 04 2009,22:29) Phew, thanks. I was thinking the world had gone topsy-turvy for a minute there. Quote However, many a good discovery started as a hunch, so I remain open minded to any number of possibilities and I like to listen to what people think. That is how we learn after all. But being closed minded makes us arrogant and eventually foolish because you can't learn when you close yourself off to possibilities, especially if it turns out to be right. …except when it comes to evolution by natural selection?
Stuart
Therefore, Stu is close minded to the possibility of the creation account. Yet the world has gone “topsy-turvy” when others are close minded to his views.thinker
If you bothered to read any of the threads about evolution in which I have posted, you would see that I have expressly acknowledged the possibility that a creationist account could be right. I have also asked what testable claim that creationist account might make. So far all the claims I have seen in response have been falsified.Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false.
Tell me what the falsifiable, predictive, evidence-explaining Theory of Divine Creation is, and maybe there is something to discuss.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,16:54) I am trying to figure out which ape avatar looks the most intelligent.
I think it might be thethinker coz Stu's cranium looks the smallest and his mouth is also the biggest in proportion to the back of the skull.
Stu's ape avatar also has the smallest ears. Ergo….thinker
Stu wrote:
Quote Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false. Stu,
How is my view that the original creation was not perfect but corruptible inconsistent with any observable facts?thinker
Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:41) Stu's ape avatar also has the smallest ears. Ergo…. thinker
Let's recap. Small ears, big mouth, small cranium.When you chose that avatar Stu, were you looking for these qualities?
Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:46) Stu wrote: Quote Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false. Stu,
How is my view that the original creation was not perfect but corruptible inconsistent with any observable facts?thinker
Which facts do you mean?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,22:26) Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:46) Stu wrote: Quote Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false. Stu,
How is my view that the original creation was not perfect but corruptible inconsistent with any observable facts?thinker
Which facts do you mean?Stuart
Dissolution, disintegration, decomposition, deaththinker
Quote (thethinker @ May 07 2009,02:30) Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,22:26) Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:46) Stu wrote: Quote Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false. Stu,
How is my view that the original creation was not perfect but corruptible inconsistent with any observable facts?thinker
Which facts do you mean?Stuart
Dissolution, disintegration, decomposition, deaththinker
What does perfect mean?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 07 2009,20:25) Quote (thethinker @ May 07 2009,02:30) Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,22:26) Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:46) Stu wrote: Quote Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false. Stu,
How is my view that the original creation was not perfect but corruptible inconsistent with any observable facts?thinker
Which facts do you mean?Stuart
Dissolution, disintegration, decomposition, deaththinker
What does perfect mean?Stuart
That is a good question. We have never seen it, yet we have a word for it.Perfection as you would imagine is to be without flaw, sin, fault. Perfection is described in scripture as the glory of God and that all mankind (adam) has fallen short of his glory.
Adam is the word for mankind.
Perfection then I imagine is to be without the imperfection of believing in gods that aren't really there, and to be free of the need to lie about the natural world to sustain that belief.
Stuart
OK, if that is perfection, then you are more than welcome to become perfect in your own mind.
After all you are the one driving this thing (your life).No one is stopping you are they?
Quote (Stu @ May 07 2009,20:25) Quote (thethinker @ May 07 2009,02:30) Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,22:26) Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:46) Stu wrote: Quote Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false. Stu,
How is my view that the original creation was not perfect but corruptible inconsistent with any observable facts?thinker
Which facts do you mean?Stuart
Dissolution, disintegration, decomposition, deaththinker
What does perfect mean?Stuart
Stu,
May I assume that your evasiveness means that you concede that my view of creation is consistent with the observable facts I listed?
thinkerQuote (thethinker @ May 18 2009,00:39) Quote (Stu @ May 07 2009,20:25) Quote (thethinker @ May 07 2009,02:30) Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,22:26) Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:46) Stu wrote: Quote Indeed, as you describe, creationists are close-minded. And usually they persist with lies when they are shown that their falsifiable claims are false. Stu,
How is my view that the original creation was not perfect but corruptible inconsistent with any observable facts?thinker
Which facts do you mean?Stuart
Dissolution, disintegration, decomposition, deaththinker
What does perfect mean?Stuart
Stu,
May I assume that your evasiveness means that you concede that my view of creation is consistent with the observable facts I listed?
thinker
What evasion would that be? I want to know what these terms mean, otherwise I am sure we will all be able to hear the sound of the goalposts being uprooted and moved way down field, the favourite trick of christians with discussions like this one.By the way, dissolution, disintegration, decomposition or death are all processes consistent with a naturalistic view.
Stuart
Stu said:
Quote What evasion would that be? I want to know what these terms mean, otherwise I am sure we will all be able to hear the sound of the goalposts being uprooted and moved way down field, the favourite trick of christians with discussions like this one. By the way, dissolution, disintegration, decomposition or death are all processes consistent with a naturalistic view.
Stu,
You ask me what my terms mean then you say that they are “processes.” Why do you ask me what they mean when you already know? I agree that dissolution, disintegration, decomposition and death are consistent with the naturalistic view. But I specifically asked you if these were consistent with my view of creation.I will give it to you again. I believe that God created the world corruptible. The natural processes of decay and death are consistent with my view. Yes or no? Are you afraid to answer me? Do you fear that if you concede some consistency between our respective views that you might have to give up your notion that they are mutually exclusive?
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ May 19 2009,04:55) Stu said: Quote What evasion would that be? I want to know what these terms mean, otherwise I am sure we will all be able to hear the sound of the goalposts being uprooted and moved way down field, the favourite trick of christians with discussions like this one. By the way, dissolution, disintegration, decomposition or death are all processes consistent with a naturalistic view.
Stu,
You ask me what my terms mean then you say that they are “processes.” Why do you ask me what they mean when you already know? I agree that dissolution, disintegration, decomposition and death are consistent with the naturalistic view. But I specifically asked you if these were consistent with my view of creation.I will give it to you again. I believe that God created the world corruptible. The natural processes of decay and death are consistent with my view. Yes or no? Are you afraid to answer me? Do you fear that if you concede some consistency between our respective views that you might have to give up your notion that they are mutually exclusive?
thinker
I believe that your assertion about a god creating the world is a false premise, and that the rest is therefore irrelevant. Because your creation myth does not actually make any testable claims, I have no way of telling what is consistent with it and what is not.Stuart
Stu said:
Quote I believe that your assertion about a god creating the world is a false premise, and that the rest is therefore irrelevant. Because your creation myth does not actually make any testable claims, I have no way of telling what is consistent with it and what is not. It is better to make no testable claims than to make claims that are not testable. Evolution is based in interpretation. It is based in “evidence” that is not scientifically repeatable and therefore not testable.
thinker
thethinker
Quote It is better to make no testable claims than to make claims that are not testable.
If you make no testable claim then you have said something that no one can call you on if you are wrong. Can you see why that means you have said nothing of any value?Quote Evolution is based in interpretation. It is based in “evidence” that is not scientifically repeatable and therefore not testable.
I bet you were homeskooled by fundies. What other excuse could you have?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
