@Pikachu [quote]"I think you're being intellectually dishonest[/quote]" I am not trying to be difficult, but try not to criticize people so much, instead attack the argument not the person...
I totally get that. Which is why i phrased it the way i did instead of saying "LIAR!!!" lol
There was no argument there, though. There was a declaration of faith. Without just saying "no, yur wrong", how do i express my assessment of that claim?
@Pikachu In my opinion saying you are wrong is not critical or judgmental but saying you lie, or you are dishonest is. Because it is a judgement call on the character of the person, not their argument. We all do it but it is [i]not[/i] good communication. Sorry I don't mean to be offensive but always attack the [b]behavio[/b]r NOT the [b]person[/b] Couples really need to attack [b]behavior[/b] or [b]problem[/b] not the person.
Saying "you are dishonest" would be, yes. But that's not what i said. I said i think you're being intellectually dishonest. She declared her faith position and asserted that anything contradicting that was not true science.
That's a choice, a behaviour and it was that behaviour which i was criticizing,
@Silverwings I accused him of that also many months ago ha ha and then I realized he wasn't really as hateful as he came across. I was critisised a lot in my childhood and I hate to be criticized so I am sensitive to that. I am trying to toughen up!🙂
[quote]Criticize all you like, that is my belief and I am sticking to it!![/quote]
I'm sorry if you feel personally attacked. That's not my intention at all.
What i value is intellectual rigor. So when you tell me that you reject any science which does not fit with the beliefs you already hold i need validation for that position.
It seems that you don't really want to debate the specific evidence and that disturbs me. My experience is that most people who reject the theory of evolution do not have a good understanding of what it means or the evidence behind it. I imagine that like me, you are interested in believing as many true things and as few false things as possible. So let's discuss the evidence! Engage with me🙂
Well that's why i suggested that we just take the experts at their word lol. Barring the notion that all paleontologists all over the world are lying, we might as well accept their conclusions! I suggest taking a look at the fossil evidence and the evidence for evolution in general.
Look at your answers in genesis and your other apologist websites but also have a look at the opposing views and the evidence that other people find compelling. talkorigins.com is a fantastic and [i]extensive[/i] resource which articulately describes evidence and supplies abundant reference material.
Just give that site a try. There's even an FAQ for creationist criticisms of evolution.
I'm deffs going to recommend that site again in the future. Just fyi lol
@Silverwings Trying to prove the myths in the Bible is NOT the purpose of science, although science and other academic disciplines have offered feasible explanations for some of the few, more credible, Jewish-history narratives!*
No-one can "prove" or "disprove" something that one small society in a small part of the ancient world, happened to [i]believe [/i]when it [i]genuinely [/i]had none of the vast body of international study and knowledge - across all societies and rising above all religions and none - we are very fortunate to learn, possess and appreciate today.
That at least parts of the Bible are still the "operating manual" for the later Christianity that developed centuries later from that society's descendants, is a matter of historical chance, politics and continuation of religious [i]belief[/i]. It does not [i]prove [/i]anything though, beyond that the Hebrews sincerely held the beliefs they described.
+++
*Such as in Exodus.
The "Red Sea" might be a mis-translation of the "[i]Reed[/i] Sea": a region of marshes - perhaps those between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates or somewhere on the Nile Delta - where the fleeing Hebrews might have been aided by temporarily low water and perhaps friendly locals. The Red Sea is very deep, but remembering the dreadful fate of those poor cockle-pickers in Morecombe Bay some years ago now, one might stretch the imagination enough to consider a terrifying dash across a beach at unusually low water, just escaping a rapidly-rising tide or storm that caught the unwary pursuers - but I do not know if this is possible on the Red Sea coast. Or did the escapees manage to cross the Nile in low water, ahead of a flood? A major flaw in the story as I recall it - uncorroborated and entirely the Hebrews' point of view - is its failure to state how far in time the Egyptians actually were behind the Hebrews.
A more recent suggestion is that their distant "smoke and fire" land-mark could have been an eruption in a chain of otherwise dormant volcanoes that does exist in the region. Two to three thousand years ago is very reasonable for dormancy, because the period over which any given volcanic region is active spans millions of years.
Other tales are clearly myths that do not stand up even to simple logic: Jonah and the whale (and in the Mediterranean?), the Flood, Adam and Eve, and of course the 6-Day Creation.
++
Believe in the Biblical God if you like... but you don't need believe everything in the Bible merely because it's in the Bible!
@ArishMell You can try as much as you will to minimalize Christianity, but you cant do anything to minimalize the number of adherants there are to the teachings of that one solitary figure, nor the fact that the Bible is still the #1 selling book of all time, and true science will never disprove the truth of the bible.
[quote]and true science will never disprove the truth of the bible.[quote][/quote][/quote]
I don't think anyone is trying to minimalize the number of people who believe in a religion or that the bible done made good sales. But this statement is the one i;m really going to challenge you on.
This is a faith claim. It is not upheld by evidence but is in fact held [i][b]in spite of[/b][/i] evidence.
Do you have a logical, rational way to defend this position or are you happy to admit that it is just am unsupported declaration of faith?
I know I won't convert anyone determined to regard his or her own faith as absolute irrespective of identity, theology, logic or even other sects let alone different religions. However, I am interested to know [i]why [/i]they are so determined. (Saying "Because it's in the Bible/ Q'ran/ Talmud/... and that's the word of God" is not the answer, merely repeated affirmation of belief.)
I do NOT "minimalise" ANY religion - including Christianity. However, any religion and sect is "true" ONLY to its own followers - something a lot of the more hard-line believers consistently miss or deny.
I do NOT "minimalise" ANY religion's genuine followers, but by genuine I mean including having the humility and ability to accept they cannot monopolise their own scriptures or sectarian litany as sole "truth".
If such monopoly were demonstrably possible all the many different faiths and sects invented over human history around the world ought by now have coalesced into one, uniform system, and not necessarily based on the Mosaic faith; but I do appreciate virtually all known religions have shared a few simple, basic threads.
I accept the Best Seller appellation of the Bible - it's the handbook for the world's most widespread religion. (Though Islam, which shares Christianity's and Judaism's Hebrew roots, seems to be catching up.)
I accept many Christians do cling to thinking the Bible literally true from beginning to end - some so desperately that they despise science without spotting the irony of doing so over the WWW!
I do not accept the drive by organised groups to ban teaching any science that in their [i]personal[/i] view, conflicts with their [i]own[/i] version of their [i]own[/i] religion: such groups are not theologists but amateur fascists.
I am though, interested to know the real motives of such groups, who have incidentally tried to muscle in the British education system that rightly, carefully separates theology and personal religious belief, from science.
Equally there are very many Christians, including senior clergy and other professional theologians, who do NOT take books like Genesis literally. They take them as allegory and statements of Hebrew belief, within a book whose central message is NOT to hate learning about Nature, but to accept that behind everything in Nature is an omnipotent, creative and loving God. I include three of my friends among those theologians: two vicars and a deacon - they ought to know!
And I repeat, your assertion that science cannot prove the Bible misses the point that science does not seek to attempt any such thing - but does admit the Bible cannot be proven objectively anyway! Science is not worried if some deity god made everything happen, just how it happened. It has to rise above petty sectarian squabbles, not just for academic freedom but also for collaboration between many different people of many different faiths and none.
If you are religious fine: God created everything but science then tries to understand and teach us as far as it can, HOW and WHEN.
What science shows to the open-mindedly religious is that whoever or whatever that God is, He/ She/ It is not the mere celestial conjuror wanted by Creationists, but an entity that created and continues to create, something far, far greater and more beautiful than the Genesis author [i]genuinely[/i] could have imagined.
Creationism selectively denies that full majesty and beauty we are still discovering, so its poor old God finds Himself being unthinkingly demeaned by the very people who imagine they are defending Him against those seeking to [i]understand and appreciate[/i] His Works!
So...
If God is not the hirsute naturist giant in that dotty old painting, measuring the Earth with dividers - wrong tool but pictured suspiciously resembling the Freemason's badge - is not the Creationists' magician, and takes not a literal week but so far has been calculated to have taken:
- nearly 1.5 X 10^10 years to make and run the Universe, then - nearly 5 X 10^9 years ditto for our Solar System; then - perhaps 4-5 X 10^8 years ditto for Life on Earth; but then (His one mistake?) - <<1 X 10^6 years to evolve a petulant little hominid mammal that gives itself a species name meaning "Wise" but argues bitterly about whose deity and litany are the only "true" ones, and makes a right mess of its home planet...
... well, I could almost return to my fairly loose Anglican roots and start going to Church.
