"Provocative? Some certainly was. All? Hardly, unless reality is provocative."
The point is, that amongst every legitimate question you posed, you included at some point in it provocative words. You go to all that effort writing that post, and then you just had to finish with Come on Pharisee, answer these "easy" arguments. And you tell me you aren't being provocative? Imagine, for a second, that there was an answer to all your questions. What then if I refuse to answer purely based on your unfriendly tone - because I don't have to? Because I prefer to have a discussion with people who don't boast as if they've already won? Using taunts, insults, etc, is not an appropriate way to conduct a discussion (and any such activity found in creationist articles I dissaprove of also - such is my prerogative).
Anyway, slashdot is not an appropriate medium, and if we enter into a discussion/debate then time will run out. Feel free to email me at sbbr at tyreth dot homelinux dot org, if you are interested in discussing in a manner appropriate for two adults. Though I am skeptical, because even after my last post you still couldn't resist finishing with a jab at my 'pharisaical' nature.
I was writing a response to your post, but your constant use of terms like "dragged kicking and screaming", "slithering", "sliming", "whine", and "shame on you" are enough to really irritate me. You can assume what you like from my lack of response - that your arguments were too powerful, that I'm a coward, whatever. I've decided to engage myself in arguments with people that talk in a reasonable tone. That way we are both less likely to be frustrated, and both are more likely to open their eyes to learn new things.
Almost every part of your response is charged with provocative language - and I try to avoid replying to such parts. That has rendered it near impossible for me to provide any reasonable response to your arguments, no matter how easy I think they are to refute.
Thankyou. If you find answersingenesis.org too simple (because it is primarily intended for a lay audience) then try either or both of these sites: http://www.trueorigin.org/ http://www.icr .org/pubs/imp/
I have a question regarding archaeopteryx. If we assume evolution is true, then how do we know the archaeopteryx was the transitional form from dinosaurs->birds. What if it was a single stream/species that was wiped out, and another creature happened to be the transitional form? Or how do we know that the archaeopteryx didn't diverge from the same ancestors as dinosaurs, but never came from dinosaurs itself? Or that it wasn't originally from bird ancestors, and was changing to gain some reptilian characteristics?
I'm not sure what you are saying in this post, except you are trying to position "scientists" on one side, and "creationists" on the other, when those two are not mutually exclusive terms. Some people find it amusing to include in the definition of "scientist" "one who is not a creationist", but that is simply not true. There are many creationist scientists. If you could reply with what you were intending to say, perhaps I can reply. At the moment I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying, because your use of certain words is different to mine.
Your last paragraph, in part, I can understand and respond to: Discarding evolution should not shake anyone's faith because evolution has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with objective observation, hypothesis and experimentation.
What is your definition of evolution, before I go telling you whether evolution is to do with faith or whether it's objective observation, hypothesis and experminentation. It may be that by your definition or use of the word 'evolution' that we are both in agreeance on this point.
Evolutionists don't care about the reason for existence or the definition of right and wrong -- those are philosophical questions outside the realm of science -- they simply want to figure out how life works.
You miss the point - that even if science doesn't deal with the question of right and wrong, the philosophical arguments about right and wrong will be based on scientific discoveries. It's completely irrelevant to say that science doesn't talk about these things - because it still has an effect on our understanding of them.
And our current micro/macro evolutionary models seems to answer this question better than any other scientific models right now.
What is the extent of your study of the creationist model?
and then attempt to buttress your faith by accepting only that science that supports your position
Heh, and you think evolutionists are any different? I'm constantly amazed at the great pains evolutionists go to to pretend that they are objective in their pursuit of truth. The fact is that everyone has something to gain or lose from this topic. Evolution being true, or creation being true, it doesn't matter - both will dramatically change the way you live. It can't help but affect every facet of your life. Therefore, I refuse to believe that most evolutionists act unbiased. They have everything to defend - not just intellectual pride, but morality, questions of the reason for existence, the very definition of right and wrong. This is not a neutral issue, and no-one is immune.
Please provide me a scientific definition of evolution, or provide me with the evolutionary model, and we will work from there on your complaints with the creationist model (which you claim doesn't exist).
Ah, your analogy is so clever - it may score you some browny points on slashdot as you ridicule us poor deluded creationists, but in reality does little to persuade a thinking person.
The theory of "evolution" encompasses more than what they study. As talkorigins.org puts it, evolution is "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time." That is probably what your thousands of biologists study. Of course, creationists also agree with that definition of evolution. What we reject is that all life has a common ancestor, and that given enough time living things will increase in complexity and the gene pool will become more diverse.
I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model.
Of course, there are examples of false evolutionary predictions that have had dangerous medical effects. Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs. That has turned out to be ~0. And there's the example of back treatment based on the false assumption that our ancestors walked like apes. That cause more problems until a creationist started treating patients on the assumption that the back is designed perfectly as it is. Read more here.
My recommendation is that you explore the whole of that theory of evolution that creationists reject, and see whether the pieces really do fit together.
Bear in mind, if you don't understand how a creationist can accept natural selection (which is a part of the creationist model) and still consider themselves sane/credible, then you have a lot to learn about our position. As I've said many times, I am yet to find an evolutionist who understands our position. And to me, that speaks volumes of people who are so quick to condemn something they haven't even taken the time to understand and evaluate.
Don't you dare treat us like children - I have not yet met a single evolutionist who understands the creationist position, and you have the gall to tell us that we are misinformed? Put your own house in order first before you try to tidy someone else's.
A note from a friendly creationist (myself): we don't want to use the terms micro and macro evolution anymore. Mostly because it implies that we believe evolution occurs for a short time and then suddenly stops.
While the terms are convenient, they are misleading to others. The fact is that creationists believe in natural selection, but that ultimately it is reducing the diversity of the gene pool, and mutations are causing a degredation of a species. Fortunately this is evidenced in nature, while old earth evolution (which involves an increase in diversity and an improvement of a species) isn't.
That's because school's ultimate goal isn't about learning, but rather to train people to blend in with society - to teach them that they cannot learn on their own and always need someone else to guide them. So that they cannot be self-sufficient.
While I agree that young people are usually less responsible, I blatantly reject that "Children are inheriently irresponsible, precisely because they are children".
In different cultures, and different times of history, people of a young age were able to demonstrate amazing levels of maturity and responsibility. I have often heard people lament how much older a person is before they reach maturity now. I believe that young people are immature because that's what they've been taught. If we taught young people that they were responsible and to be trusted, then that's precisely what they would be. You have gotten your cause and effect all wrong.
Do you think that wine users will really want to run this? I'd much rather reply telling them their message was garbled, making it hard to adopt Microsoft software, than trying to bend to MS's will.
From a Christian perspective there are a few thoughts, but one of them is not "do not put God to the test". If prayer really is supposed to aid most (or even a measurable percentage) people, then it should be able to be proven - whether through intentional or accidental experience. For example, someone is missing a foot - they are prayed for and the foot grows back.
It doesn't go without saying though, that God is not a neutral, unintelligent force that is manipulated by the hands of men. Many people treat prayer like a magic spell, a way we can force His hand to our will. The truth is (from a Christian perspective, obviously not from a New Ager or others who believe that all things make up God) that if a person's time to die has come, they will die. I am of an increasingly minority view in Christianity today. After the New Testament was completed, the spiritual gifts (healing, prophecy, miracles, etc) ceased. Their purpose for that time had been completed, and they ended - as had happened in times before. Then over the next 400 years, culminating with Christianity becoming the official religion of Rome, the supposed miraculous increased in number. But these were not the true gifts - they were pseudo miracles, hypnotism, trickery and deception.
This experiment confirmed what I already believed - that prayer is our chance to worship God, to make known our heartache, and pray for His intercession in ours and other's lives. We can request from Him a miracle for healing or other things. In reality, such true miracles are very rare. As someone said, for the few thousand that Jesus fed miraculously, millions still have to cook their meals every night. The miracles are a sign of His power, but by no means common.
The truth is, I don't expect God to make much of a difference for all those prayers made, regardless of whether it's a test or just a ministry, regardless of whether they are all from the "One True Religion" or not. If God has any power at all, then we are His servants, not the other way around.
Sigh. It is not that hard for me to understand that others see the Bible as a work of fiction. It may or may not surprise you that I have been well aware of the fact that people do for many years.
However, what you have a problem understanding is that it's not really complimentary, and really is insulting, to tell someone to their face that their beliefs are fairy tales. Your exact original words were: Why not work forwards from what is observable, instead of backwards from a bunch of fairy-tales?
That is insulting. You talk as if it is established that these are fairy tales. You did not say "I think they are fairy-tales" - you talked authoritatively as if they are fairy tales. You worked from the supposition that we would both agree these are fairy tales. That is not the way to get someone on your good side. If I say to someone whose beliefs differ to mine "why don't you give up your fairy tales and look at the truth" I am not going to persuade them! They will put up their defences and feel no compulsion to be persuaded. If on the other hand I say "I have some good reasons for not believing what you do", then they are more inclined to listen. Surely you can see that! Your words were not an "I think they're fairy tales", they were "you and I both think these are fairy tales".
Lets reverse it. I could say "Why don't you let go of your evolutionary fairy tales and look at reality?" - does that work? do you find it persuasive? I think evolution is a fairy tale - so what if we both start accusing each other of listening to fairy tales? Of what does it avail us? It is entirely useless.
And what's that sarcasm of religion being genetic?
See these things, ":)", those are smiley faces. People often smile when they're trying to be friendly. If you can't take a few good natured jabs, I feel sorry for you.
All the smiling in the world does not make up for an insult. If I make racial slurs and smile while I'm saying them, does not justify them. But I'm tired of this anyway.
but you're grown up enough to accept what other people really think about your beliefs, no?
Don't let him who puts on his armour boast as if he takes it off. You know nothing about my beliefs. So how then can you claim I'm grown up enough to reject them?
Why? Because people, not being face-to-face, are more comfortable asking hard questions? Being exposed to a lot of Christian "teaching," I find that Christians often use intimidation as a means of silencing dissent. There is no public discourse among average Christians.
Sure, that's the reason (sarcasm). It's nothing to do with what I've explained numerous times, but it's because I like to intimidate people.
It doesn't seem to be working well. I think it's just scaring away everyone who is interested; your approach is reminiscient of Scientology... "Let's discuss this in private and I'll let you in on the 'truth.'"
People who are interested have contacted me. The rest, like yourself, are not interested, but instead already boast as if you've won the argument. I have no interest in entering a discussion under that context.
As I said though, I've had enough of this. I begin to feel like you are trolling. I've stated my reasons for why I don't want to debate on slashdot. It seems that people think they score points by refusing to contact me via email - as if debating my request that we talk via email is some victory.
If people don't consider Linux a viable alternative, the problem lies with Linux, not with said people. Attitudes such as this will do nothing to help Linux.
Why? Because it's not possible for people to have misconceptions about something they've never used?
Well, my view is this: if you believe in your opinions and you stand behind them, then any negativity from others should be deflectable.
I had an experience with a man who took over a server I had been running. He reinstalled his own preferred flavour of Linux on it, and consequently couldn't get email to work. He spent ages trying to figure it out, and I had a look for him too. I told him that the firewall was the problem - but he wouldn't listen to me. I did more looking just to be sure, but he still wasn't persuaded. I asked others who knew their stuff, and they all said firewall too, but he *still* wouldn't listen. So I gave up, because there was no way to convince him. A week later he realises that the problem was the firewall.
That's how I feel when I argue evolution on slashdot. People just won't listen. I'm not at all afraid of getting criticism - what frustrates me is that feeling of banging my head against a brick wall. And there is one particular argument that I think is a *very* powerful testimony against one evolutionary dating method, but every single time the evolutionist comes up with the most inane defences. As an analogy, imagine a building with a door that you have been instructed cannot be opened. You try and are able to open the door. You try to tell others, but they won't believe you, even though you open and close it in front of their eyes - they just quote the instructions saying that the door cannot possibly be opened. That's what I loathe.
Sometimes I state my own opinions, knowing that I might most likely receive some criticism... I don't mind that.. sometimes I reply, sometimes I don't.
Right. In this case, I hardly even stated an opinion - but rather a link to someone else's thoughts for those interested. I tried to exercise my right to not reply, as you say you sometimes don't - but then you are telling me that I should.
I firmly believe that from an explorative point of view, any theory that has as a basis or conclusion that "some guy in the sky did it all" is useless, since the discussion will then shift to "ok, but who made the big guy in the sky".
It will not be pointed out that it is merely beyond our understanding, but also why. We live in a universe where we have freedom of movement through certain dimensions, but on others our course is inescapably fixed. Any Creator will be outside the bounds of such dimensions, able to manipulate and control them at will. Since our minds are bound up inside these dimensions, how can we possibly understand those things outside them? The dimension I refer primarily to is time. So it's not just a careless argument of "we can't understand that" - there are excellent reasons why. I can provide an analogy if you want to understand it more clearly.
Off topic - one does not have to be religious to see that homosexuality is unnatural - and also something that nature would select against (creationists do not reject natural selection, a common misunderstanding of evolutionists - scientific american's "15 answers to creationist nonsense" claims we reject natural selection, which we do not).
I do not believe that the fact that you and I have a different opinion will have an adverse effect on either of our lives, so although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I do wish you good luck in having constructive discussions about them in the future.
I personally do not believe in aliens. I've seen the chances of evolution occuring, and it's a chance of 0. Especially if the universe is finite (back on topic!). To expect me to believe that this should happen twice in the same universe is just absurd. From a christian perspective, I believe it is possible that God created life on other worlds, but I don't count on it. Anyway, here's the point: because I don't believe in aliens, the question of whether they exist or not is unimportant to me. I think, "well, if they exist then cool, but it really doesn't affect me one way or the other". On the ot
I'm not sure where you come from, but here in Australia, calling someone "deluded" and claiming that their beliefs are "fairy tales" is insulting. I don't know, perhaps where you live it is common to call people who differ from your opinions "deluded" to their face before actually talking to them. Perhaps you say to Muslims and Hindu's that they believe in fairy tales. Where I'm from it's not acceptable. Even though I disagree with those people, I talk to them about it on rational grounds, not with derogatory words.
Bias? Because I don't believe what an ancient book that has been dragged through history and misinterpreted and abridged a number of times says without question, that means I'm biased?
Biased because in my experience people who call me deluded and a believer in fairy tales are seldom interested in the truth - they are almost without exception interested in scoring some points with fellow slashdotters by throwing out petty insults. ie, they would never admit to being wrong because it would mean losing face.
Further, if you don't want to start a discussion on/., then why did you post on/.?
Because I thought some might be interested to know in a model of space that involved a finite universe. I never stated once in my original post that I was interested in a debate. Everything I wanted to say was in that original post.
I at least tried to be somewhat friendly. You could have responded in kind and given me a link to more information, which I was at least willing to look at...
As I said above, your responses were not somewhat friendly - I found them insulting. Here's a tip: if you want to act friendly, do not call the person "deluded" or their beliefs "fairy tales".
Now if you are genuinely interested, I am quite open to providing you with links to answers on those questions you posted in your original comments. I've already given my email account. And if you find the answers satisfactory, you won't have to lose face in front of other slashdotters - so what have you got to fear? I've also explained numerous times in this thread to others why I don't post links any more - I'm trying a different approach. Look around and you should find them. Slashdot is one of the poorest mediums for discussing evolution and creation.
Sigh. Read my replies to others about why I won't discuss on slashdot. If you think I'm being a coward, or don't like my reasons - fine. You won't persuade me.
I am especially not interested in discussing with people who call my beliefs "fairy-tales". It shows a clear bias and ignorance that I doubt I will be able to penetrate. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, that amongst every legitimate question you posed, you included at some point in it provocative words. You go to all that effort writing that post, and then you just had to finish with Come on Pharisee, answer these "easy" arguments. And you tell me you aren't being provocative? Imagine, for a second, that there was an answer to all your questions. What then if I refuse to answer purely based on your unfriendly tone - because I don't have to? Because I prefer to have a discussion with people who don't boast as if they've already won? Using taunts, insults, etc, is not an appropriate way to conduct a discussion (and any such activity found in creationist articles I dissaprove of also - such is my prerogative).
Anyway, slashdot is not an appropriate medium, and if we enter into a discussion/debate then time will run out. Feel free to email me at sbbr at tyreth dot homelinux dot org, if you are interested in discussing in a manner appropriate for two adults. Though I am skeptical, because even after my last post you still couldn't resist finishing with a jab at my 'pharisaical' nature.
Almost every part of your response is charged with provocative language - and I try to avoid replying to such parts. That has rendered it near impossible for me to provide any reasonable response to your arguments, no matter how easy I think they are to refute.
Thankyou. If you find answersingenesis.org too simple (because it is primarily intended for a lay audience) then try either or both of these sites:r .org/pubs/imp/
http://www.trueorigin.org/
http://www.ic
I have a question regarding archaeopteryx. If we assume evolution is true, then how do we know the archaeopteryx was the transitional form from dinosaurs->birds. What if it was a single stream/species that was wiped out, and another creature happened to be the transitional form? Or how do we know that the archaeopteryx didn't diverge from the same ancestors as dinosaurs, but never came from dinosaurs itself? Or that it wasn't originally from bird ancestors, and was changing to gain some reptilian characteristics?
Your last paragraph, in part, I can understand and respond to:
Discarding evolution should not shake anyone's faith because evolution has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with objective observation, hypothesis and experimentation.
What is your definition of evolution, before I go telling you whether evolution is to do with faith or whether it's objective observation, hypothesis and experminentation. It may be that by your definition or use of the word 'evolution' that we are both in agreeance on this point.
Evolutionists don't care about the reason for existence or the definition of right and wrong -- those are philosophical questions outside the realm of science -- they simply want to figure out how life works.
You miss the point - that even if science doesn't deal with the question of right and wrong, the philosophical arguments about right and wrong will be based on scientific discoveries. It's completely irrelevant to say that science doesn't talk about these things - because it still has an effect on our understanding of them.
And our current micro/macro evolutionary models seems to answer this question better than any other scientific models right now.
What is the extent of your study of the creationist model?
Heh, and you think evolutionists are any different? I'm constantly amazed at the great pains evolutionists go to to pretend that they are objective in their pursuit of truth. The fact is that everyone has something to gain or lose from this topic. Evolution being true, or creation being true, it doesn't matter - both will dramatically change the way you live. It can't help but affect every facet of your life. Therefore, I refuse to believe that most evolutionists act unbiased. They have everything to defend - not just intellectual pride, but morality, questions of the reason for existence, the very definition of right and wrong. This is not a neutral issue, and no-one is immune.
Please provide me a scientific definition of evolution, or provide me with the evolutionary model, and we will work from there on your complaints with the creationist model (which you claim doesn't exist).
When you talk about a "sky fairy", who's beliefs exactly were you alluding to?
Ah, your analogy is so clever - it may score you some browny points on slashdot as you ridicule us poor deluded creationists, but in reality does little to persuade a thinking person.
I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model.
Of course, there are examples of false evolutionary predictions that have had dangerous medical effects. Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs. That has turned out to be ~0. And there's the example of back treatment based on the false assumption that our ancestors walked like apes. That cause more problems until a creationist started treating patients on the assumption that the back is designed perfectly as it is. Read more here.
My recommendation is that you explore the whole of that theory of evolution that creationists reject, and see whether the pieces really do fit together.
Bear in mind, if you don't understand how a creationist can accept natural selection (which is a part of the creationist model) and still consider themselves sane/credible, then you have a lot to learn about our position. As I've said many times, I am yet to find an evolutionist who understands our position. And to me, that speaks volumes of people who are so quick to condemn something they haven't even taken the time to understand and evaluate.
Don't you dare treat us like children - I have not yet met a single evolutionist who understands the creationist position, and you have the gall to tell us that we are misinformed? Put your own house in order first before you try to tidy someone else's.
While the terms are convenient, they are misleading to others. The fact is that creationists believe in natural selection, but that ultimately it is reducing the diversity of the gene pool, and mutations are causing a degredation of a species. Fortunately this is evidenced in nature, while old earth evolution (which involves an increase in diversity and an improvement of a species) isn't.
That's because school's ultimate goal isn't about learning, but rather to train people to blend in with society - to teach them that they cannot learn on their own and always need someone else to guide them. So that they cannot be self-sufficient.
In different cultures, and different times of history, people of a young age were able to demonstrate amazing levels of maturity and responsibility. I have often heard people lament how much older a person is before they reach maturity now. I believe that young people are immature because that's what they've been taught. If we taught young people that they were responsible and to be trusted, then that's precisely what they would be. You have gotten your cause and effect all wrong.
This would seem to be a boon to young people, unless I'm mistaken on how it works.
Give your RFID to a friend and have him/her sign you off at every class along with themselves. Enjoy a day at home of real learning.
Do you think that wine users will really want to run this? I'd much rather reply telling them their message was garbled, making it hard to adopt Microsoft software, than trying to bend to MS's will.
Huh? To test your faith in evolution - seeing as this animal remained near unchanged for 130 million years? I don't understand.
It doesn't go without saying though, that God is not a neutral, unintelligent force that is manipulated by the hands of men. Many people treat prayer like a magic spell, a way we can force His hand to our will. The truth is (from a Christian perspective, obviously not from a New Ager or others who believe that all things make up God) that if a person's time to die has come, they will die. I am of an increasingly minority view in Christianity today. After the New Testament was completed, the spiritual gifts (healing, prophecy, miracles, etc) ceased. Their purpose for that time had been completed, and they ended - as had happened in times before. Then over the next 400 years, culminating with Christianity becoming the official religion of Rome, the supposed miraculous increased in number. But these were not the true gifts - they were pseudo miracles, hypnotism, trickery and deception.
This experiment confirmed what I already believed - that prayer is our chance to worship God, to make known our heartache, and pray for His intercession in ours and other's lives. We can request from Him a miracle for healing or other things. In reality, such true miracles are very rare. As someone said, for the few thousand that Jesus fed miraculously, millions still have to cook their meals every night. The miracles are a sign of His power, but by no means common.
The truth is, I don't expect God to make much of a difference for all those prayers made, regardless of whether it's a test or just a ministry, regardless of whether they are all from the "One True Religion" or not. If God has any power at all, then we are His servants, not the other way around.
However, what you have a problem understanding is that it's not really complimentary, and really is insulting, to tell someone to their face that their beliefs are fairy tales. Your exact original words were:
Why not work forwards from what is observable, instead of backwards from a bunch of fairy-tales?
That is insulting. You talk as if it is established that these are fairy tales. You did not say "I think they are fairy-tales" - you talked authoritatively as if they are fairy tales. You worked from the supposition that we would both agree these are fairy tales. That is not the way to get someone on your good side. If I say to someone whose beliefs differ to mine "why don't you give up your fairy tales and look at the truth" I am not going to persuade them! They will put up their defences and feel no compulsion to be persuaded. If on the other hand I say "I have some good reasons for not believing what you do", then they are more inclined to listen. Surely you can see that! Your words were not an "I think they're fairy tales", they were "you and I both think these are fairy tales".
Lets reverse it. I could say "Why don't you let go of your evolutionary fairy tales and look at reality?" - does that work? do you find it persuasive? I think evolution is a fairy tale - so what if we both start accusing each other of listening to fairy tales? Of what does it avail us? It is entirely useless.
And what's that sarcasm of religion being genetic?
All the smiling in the world does not make up for an insult. If I make racial slurs and smile while I'm saying them, does not justify them. But I'm tired of this anyway.
but you're grown up enough to accept what other people really think about your beliefs, no?
Don't let him who puts on his armour boast as if he takes it off. You know nothing about my beliefs. So how then can you claim I'm grown up enough to reject them?
Why? Because people, not being face-to-face, are more comfortable asking hard questions? Being exposed to a lot of Christian "teaching," I find that Christians often use intimidation as a means of silencing dissent. There is no public discourse among average Christians.
Sure, that's the reason (sarcasm). It's nothing to do with what I've explained numerous times, but it's because I like to intimidate people.
It doesn't seem to be working well. I think it's just scaring away everyone who is interested; your approach is reminiscient of Scientology... "Let's discuss this in private and I'll let you in on the 'truth.'"
People who are interested have contacted me. The rest, like yourself, are not interested, but instead already boast as if you've won the argument. I have no interest in entering a discussion under that context.
As I said though, I've had enough of this. I begin to feel like you are trolling. I've stated my reasons for why I don't want to debate on slashdot. It seems that people think they score points by refusing to contact me via email - as if debating my request that we talk via email is some victory.
Why? Because it's not possible for people to have misconceptions about something they've never used?
I had an experience with a man who took over a server I had been running. He reinstalled his own preferred flavour of Linux on it, and consequently couldn't get email to work. He spent ages trying to figure it out, and I had a look for him too. I told him that the firewall was the problem - but he wouldn't listen to me. I did more looking just to be sure, but he still wasn't persuaded. I asked others who knew their stuff, and they all said firewall too, but he *still* wouldn't listen. So I gave up, because there was no way to convince him. A week later he realises that the problem was the firewall.
That's how I feel when I argue evolution on slashdot. People just won't listen. I'm not at all afraid of getting criticism - what frustrates me is that feeling of banging my head against a brick wall. And there is one particular argument that I think is a *very* powerful testimony against one evolutionary dating method, but every single time the evolutionist comes up with the most inane defences. As an analogy, imagine a building with a door that you have been instructed cannot be opened. You try and are able to open the door. You try to tell others, but they won't believe you, even though you open and close it in front of their eyes - they just quote the instructions saying that the door cannot possibly be opened. That's what I loathe.
Sometimes I state my own opinions, knowing that I might most likely receive some criticism... I don't mind that.. sometimes I reply, sometimes I don't.
Right. In this case, I hardly even stated an opinion - but rather a link to someone else's thoughts for those interested. I tried to exercise my right to not reply, as you say you sometimes don't - but then you are telling me that I should.
I firmly believe that from an explorative point of view, any theory that has as a basis or conclusion that "some guy in the sky did it all" is useless, since the discussion will then shift to "ok, but who made the big guy in the sky".
It will not be pointed out that it is merely beyond our understanding, but also why. We live in a universe where we have freedom of movement through certain dimensions, but on others our course is inescapably fixed. Any Creator will be outside the bounds of such dimensions, able to manipulate and control them at will. Since our minds are bound up inside these dimensions, how can we possibly understand those things outside them? The dimension I refer primarily to is time. So it's not just a careless argument of "we can't understand that" - there are excellent reasons why. I can provide an analogy if you want to understand it more clearly.
Off topic - one does not have to be religious to see that homosexuality is unnatural - and also something that nature would select against (creationists do not reject natural selection, a common misunderstanding of evolutionists - scientific american's "15 answers to creationist nonsense" claims we reject natural selection, which we do not).
I do not believe that the fact that you and I have a different opinion will have an adverse effect on either of our lives, so although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I do wish you good luck in having constructive discussions about them in the future.
I personally do not believe in aliens. I've seen the chances of evolution occuring, and it's a chance of 0. Especially if the universe is finite (back on topic!). To expect me to believe that this should happen twice in the same universe is just absurd. From a christian perspective, I believe it is possible that God created life on other worlds, but I don't count on it. Anyway, here's the point: because I don't believe in aliens, the question of whether they exist or not is unimportant to me. I think, "well, if they exist then cool, but it really doesn't affect me one way or the other". On the ot
hmm, I noticed that and was hoping someone on slashdot had already explained the discrepancy.
Yes, because the Linux desktop is so dead right now.
Bias? Because I don't believe what an ancient book that has been dragged through history and misinterpreted and abridged a number of times says without question, that means I'm biased?
Biased because in my experience people who call me deluded and a believer in fairy tales are seldom interested in the truth - they are almost without exception interested in scoring some points with fellow slashdotters by throwing out petty insults. ie, they would never admit to being wrong because it would mean losing face.
Further, if you don't want to start a discussion on /., then why did you post on /.?
Because I thought some might be interested to know in a model of space that involved a finite universe. I never stated once in my original post that I was interested in a debate. Everything I wanted to say was in that original post.
I at least tried to be somewhat friendly. You could have responded in kind and given me a link to more information, which I was at least willing to look at...
As I said above, your responses were not somewhat friendly - I found them insulting. Here's a tip: if you want to act friendly, do not call the person "deluded" or their beliefs "fairy tales".
Now if you are genuinely interested, I am quite open to providing you with links to answers on those questions you posted in your original comments. I've already given my email account. And if you find the answers satisfactory, you won't have to lose face in front of other slashdotters - so what have you got to fear? I've also explained numerous times in this thread to others why I don't post links any more - I'm trying a different approach. Look around and you should find them. Slashdot is one of the poorest mediums for discussing evolution and creation.
I am especially not interested in discussing with people who call my beliefs "fairy-tales". It shows a clear bias and ignorance that I doubt I will be able to penetrate. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall.
Saying someone's unqualified doesn't always refer to their academic recognition.