Creationists

[Dragon]

So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Homo erectus

This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.

 

[koshergrl]

"Believed".

It's all about faith.

 

[Dragon]

"Believed".

As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species H. erectus and H. sapiens, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of erectus, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of H. sapiens. But this is not absolutely certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."

It's all about faith.

No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.

 

[Dr.Drock]

"Believed".

As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species H. erectus and H. sapiens, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of erectus, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of H. sapiens. But this is not absolutely certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."

It's all about faith.

No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.

You explained that perfectly, well done.

 

[koshergrl]

"Believed".

As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species H. erectus and H. sapiens, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of erectus, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of H. sapiens. But this is not absolutely certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."

It's all about faith.

No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.

No, I'm 100 percent certain.

You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.

 

[InDoctriNation]

"Believed".

As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species H. erectus and H. sapiens, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of erectus, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of H. sapiens. But this is not absolutely certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."

It's all about faith.

No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.

No, I'm 100 percent certain.

You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.

What the hell are you talking about? Being 100% committed to your belief is different from being 100% certain of its veracity. So which is it? If you claim 100% certainty, then you are being disingenuous. I'll admit I just jumped into this thread, but you've compelled me to comment on your nonsensical drivel.

 

[Dragon]

No, I'm 100 percent certain.

Right. And that claim is based on neither science nor faith, but merely on dogmatism.

But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

Well, my belief that H. erectus was the immediate ancestor of H. sapiens, although I can't hold it with 100% confidence, has a lot more evidence behind it than your belief in a divine creation. There's enough evidence for me to be 99% certain about that ancestry and so this is what I claim; but there is literally ZERO evidence in favor of a one-time divine creation and the entire fossil record argues against it, which means the evidence goes deeply into the negative -- and yet you believe it one hundred percent despite this.

It's really not the 100% part that makes your position less valid. It's that you give such nonsense any credence at all.

 

[koshergrl]

As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species H. erectus and H. sapiens, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of erectus, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of H. sapiens. But this is not absolutely certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."



No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.

No, I'm 100 percent certain.

You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.

What the hell are you talking about? Being 100% committed to your belief is different from being 100% certain of its veracity. So which is it? If you claim 100% certainty, then you are being disingenuous. I'll admit I just jumped into this thread, but you've compelled me to comment on your nonsensical drivel.

I'm pretty sure I said which it was, you nitwit. Talk about nonsensical drivel.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I'm 100 percent certain.

Right. And that claim is based on neither science nor faith, but merely on dogmatism.

But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

Well, my belief that H. erectus was the immediate ancestor of H. sapiens, although I can't hold it with 100% confidence, has a lot more evidence behind it than your belief in a divine creation. There's enough evidence for me to be 99% certain about that ancestry and so this is what I claim; but there is literally ZERO evidence in favor of a one-time divine creation and the entire fossil record argues against it, which means the evidence goes deeply into the negative -- and yet you believe it one hundred percent despite this.

It's really not the 100% part that makes your position less valid. It's that you give such nonsense any credence at all.

I feel the same about you, believe me.

 

[Dr.Drock]

"Believed".

As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species H. erectus and H. sapiens, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of erectus, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of H. sapiens. But this is not absolutely certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."

It's all about faith.

No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.

No, I'm 100 percent certain.

You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.

It's fine if she's 100% certain, it's just not based on anything having to do with science.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course it is. Science supports every single one of my beliefs.

I don't know why you guys worry so much about the faith system of others. You have your own, why don't you just stick to it and mind your own business? Why do you feel compelled to label anyone who doesn't have faith in the same things you do as "stupid" or "uneducated" or whatever, particularly when they aren't stupid or uneducated? Is it because you doubt your own beliefs and it somehow makes them seem more valid if you can ridicule those who don't hold them?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Of course it is. Science supports every single one of my beliefs.

I don't know why you guys worry so much about the faith system of others. You have your own, why don't you just stick to it and mind your own business? Why do you feel compelled to label anyone who doesn't have faith in the same things you do as "stupid" or "uneducated" or whatever, particularly when they aren't stupid or uneducated? Is it because you doubt your own beliefs and it somehow makes them seem more valid if you can ridicule those who don't hold them?

I don't think you're stupid or uneducated.

I do find it intersting though that you say science supports all your beliefs, let's explore that.

Does science support that a man can part a sea with his hands?

Does science support that a man can live inside a whale?

Does science support that a snake can talk?

Does science support that a man can die, be dead for days, and come back to life later?

I'm sure there's dozens more I could ask, but let's start with those.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.

Anything else?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.

Anything else?

That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.


Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.


I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.

I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.

You were saying?

Then I am saying you are not applying them.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.

Anything else?

That's fine, but your predictions aren't based no science is what I'm saying.


Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.


I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.

And how would you know that? Can you read my mind? Do you hold all scientific knowledge?

No, you can't..and you don't. So why is it you feel compelled to tell me what I believe?

 

[koshergrl]

koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.

I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.

You were saying?

Then I am saying you are not applying them.

And I am saying you are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that's fine, but that is only opinion, which is all you have on the major premise of the thread. Your faith beliefs cannot be scientifically confirmed concerning either creation or evolution. The data does not confirm your opinions.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.

Anything else?

That's fine, but your predictions aren't based no science is what I'm saying.


Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.


I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.

And how would you know that? Can you read my mind? Do you hold all scientific knowledge?

No, you can't..and you don't. So why is it you feel compelled to tell me what I believe?

Please correct me if the beliefs I stated you have are incorrect.

Are there things in the Bible that you don't believe happened?

 

[koshergrl]

Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.

Anything else?

That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.


Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.


I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.

Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?

Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed?

The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?