Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
About the fossil fish article, "expunged" means sealed of from public, right? Eventhough this information might not be accessible trough the internet, I'm 100% confident it's far from expunged. Like said in that very same article, scientists haven't found/thought off a satisfactionary explanation. This implies it is or has been open for discussions, obviously others didn't agree with an explanation given. I don't believe in conspiracy theories when it comes to science, and any information that get's expunged should off course not be expunged. What are the arguments from that site to conclude the information isn't open to public? Quote:
Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.
That's only true when you think one excludes the other possibility and when there were only 2 possible options. I don't think science excludes the possibility of a God existing ... yet.
Quote:
if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.
Well this definition of 'design' here has it's flaws. Complex now or not, life began as something not complicated. Just because we don't know exactly how that first life was created or came to existance or whatever, doesn't directly mean it was designed. Also what's life's purpose then? Just replicating? Why for survival? Why do we need to survive? That 'purpose' part is so relative it makes my head start spinning, just keep asking more questions hehehe.
Besides one could state 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' as some sort of designing factors too. When life would be designed, then it doesn't make much sense to make lifeforms with flaws. Explain that.
Quote:
However, since you already speak three languages fluently (that I know of) dont you think Hebrew and Greek might unnessesarily complicate your life?
Wether I speak those languages or not, doesn't matter at all. It's the translation process that's the problem, irrelevant in which language it occures. Besides Greek and Hebrew are not that complicated, again it's more the contextual interpretations that are questionable based on poor translations.
Quote:
Explain this one buddy. Is this the darwin fish?Umm no just more proof of great catastrophic flood type events: This poor fish didnt even get a chance to finish lunch before he suddenly died.
Right, sure this fish was knocked unconscious during a flood, together with his meal? I don't think so! This fish and his meal must have died within a few splitseconds to be even concerved like this. This smells like a vulcanic erruption or underwater avalanche to me, or something way more swift than a flood would be. Explain to me in detail how you think a flood could cause such a fossil...
Quote:
How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.
So easy to claim, but both modern and ancient literature combined with some common sense tells us otherwise really.
Quote:
Religion? No. Superstition? Certainly not. Both of these things are man-made inventions. I won't argue whether or not its good to go to church, but you're missing the point. The only thing we can really be sure of is God. Traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant.
Not only is religion a man-made invention, but God is big part of that invention. How can you be sure about that invention then? I definately agree with that last line, traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant, yet why do you seem to place the bible outside your very own belief of that last line? It doesn't make sense.
Quote:
I've researched scientific information on dark matter. The only proof I read for it is that it fills in the gaps left by the big bang. That's circular reasoning. It exists because of big bang. Its also caused by the big bang. Once again, did you ever just assume the theory is wrong?
Science doesn't simply assume something. Off course theories can be wrong, and we need to have evidence or other indications (for example, certain things might not make enough sense, well then it's possibly likely that it's unlikely) that a theory is wrong. If you've found some, tell us and we'd have to change our view.
Quote:
I mean, what are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?!
Yes, didn't you know?  I know some interesting things about 9/11, anti-gravity technology, extraterrestrials, elvis and how they all are linked to pluto.  
Quote:
There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand.
Definately, and as a result, science doesn't go with guarantees. Religion claims to be able to guarantee quite some things, I wonder when they discussed the conditions with God though. I didn't sign anywhere as far as I can remember either. So how can I not doubt anything that's religious?
Quote:
Evolutionists must have evolved a resistance to this natural human tendancy then. Do you really claim that you're invincible to this sort of reasoning? You're a human just like everyone else, believe it or not. However, this does help put a spotlight on the arrogance of evolutionists in thinking that their way of thinking is the standard for everyone else.
Evolutionist are not any different in this respect, and I never claimed otherwise. I do feel our reason for holding on to our view is more justified, but that's a subjective view, like I've tried to explain earlier.
Quote:
Those other excluded texts were often excluded for good reason. If something is written by an agnostic (and so on), why would we include it? Its couter-point to everything the bible teaches. You're just parroting long-refuted atheist arguments against the bible. Of course, I parrot a lot of creationist ideas, but at least I take the time to understand them and elaborate on them when I'm questioned.
I guess that's what you keep telling yourself, but there are plenty of religious sects who feel very different about this. There shouldn't have been any selection at all, selection means excluding parts of text. This implies that we need to believe the word of the people that selected those texts for them being even true and holy and authentic at all. It's obviously clear that the bible has been used in the past as an instrument of control, it had it's political power, wether you'd admit it or not, but religious texts are never politically neutral (or useless for that matter).
Cheers
|
