data_link wrote:Perheps flaming is an inaccurate term. More like "willfully pissing people off with your stupidity."
And what have I said that is stupid? I hold a certain belief,but I view science independently of it. Do you believe I am stupid for holding the opinion that Christianity is true, or is there another reason?
And why do you attribute malice to my actions? Surely that is making an unfair assumption about my motives. Surely if I am talking to people about love and doing so in a considerably more polite manner than the majority of people i this thread, then malice would be the last thing to ascribe to me unless you believe that Christians are by definition malicious. Or is there some other reason that has not occurred to me, as to why you think I'm being unpleasant towards people.
And I see that you didn't understand my analogy.
Surely if that was true, it would be more constructive to try and explain what you meant?
I never said that. I said that God could well have done, but for the purposes of science, we look at the available non-Biblical evidence and see that it appears to be several billion years old and build our models based on that. Separation of science and belief.
Ah. So you are a fundie, and furthermore you don't understand the principle of exclusion, which states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
I understand it perfectly. I never said otherwise. What I said and you apparently didn't understand was that God could have created the world in 6 literal days, with the appearance of having been created several billion years ago. For the purposes of faith, I assume that he has this power. for the purposes of science, what I can observe is more important, so I model the universe as if it was several billion years old, because it looks and acts as if it was, according to our best understanding of Physics. The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive because they are concerned with different areas.
Tell me, since you believe that the Earth was created in six days,
Read what I said. My viewpoint is that God could have created the world in 6 days if he'd wanted. Whether or not he did isn't important for my faith and when it comes to science, i model the universe as if it was several billion years old. I've said this several times now. Where does the problem in understanding this lie?
why does every shred of evidence we have say it was formed by gravitational collapse over millions of years?
Because that's what we have observed and consequently I model the universe as if that was true. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, as long as it describes how the universe works accurately.Take Schrodinger's equation for example. It was just made up. No theoretical basis. It accurately describes the way quantum mechanics seems to work, however, so the fact that it as pulled out of the air is irrelevant.
Since you believe that man was created out of the dust of the ground,
I believe that that's a metaphor, actually, and don't regard it as terribly important. For scientific purposes I would say that we're created from the stars.
why does every shred of evidence support the theory of evolution?
Actually, that's not true. There is plenty of evidence for natural selection, but that involves the loss of genetic materials, whereas evolution is more concerned with mutation and addition of genetic material. It's not something I'm versed in, however, and do not see it as a contradiction with my faith.
Since you believe that God seperated the light from the darkness on the first day, perhaps you can explain how there was light and darkness when there were no light producing objects?
This is pretty much the same as the last couple of points.
You seem to be of the ignorant opinion that the bible has nothing to say that contradicts science while ignoring the fact that it does,
False dilemma. You assume that your interpretation is the only valid one. Think of the creation story in Genesis as God setting up an experiment and science as us looking at the experiment while it is running. How it was set up is irrelevant as long as it behaves as if it was set up in a way consistent with the way it is currently running.
and then when it's pointed out to you that the Bible does contradict science, you insult science by claiming that it's models don't have anything to do with reality.
Care to quote me insulting science? I'm a scientist myself and am quite aware of the successes and limitations of science. All it is capable of doing is describing how the universe appears to work. Do you agree or disagree with me on that?
fun·da·men·tal·ism Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
Exactly.[/quote]
'A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles' is the primary attribute, which is always true o a type 1 fundamentalist. The 'intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism' is a secondary attribute which is not necessary for a fundamentalist. To claim that all type 1 fundamentalists have that attribute would be a fallacy.
e.g.
Car
1. a motor vehicle, often with 4 wheels
On the basis of this, it would be a fallacy to claim that all cars have 4 wheels.
With regards to definition 2, Biblical inerrancy does not mean overriding science. I believe in Biblical inerrancy, but would not use it as a scientific document for reasons I have already outlined.
When you believe that all atheists are incapable of tolerance, yes.
I challenge you to find one instance where I have said that. It is the atheists here who have been accusing me of being intolerant.
We said the bible is wrong. We said nothing about mainstream Christianity.
People have been telling me that Jesus didn't die for their sins and they don't need him, they are therefore saying that Christianity is wrong.
We don't want to have to listen to "all you have to do is accept God's word" and "repent of your sins and you'll go to heaven" and "God loves everyone: he gave everyone a chance to accept his word: John 3:16"
Then what on earth are you doing debating about Christianity. I mean, come on, what did you expect? You think like having people claim Hitler was a Christian or try to blame the crusades on me?
those are side issues that distract from the real argument.
Why? Because it's an obvious attempt to distract from the main argument about the truthfulness of the Bible.
Since when have you been capable of reading my mind. People say that God is evil and hateful. I think these verse show them to be wrong. I'm hardly going to discuss the Bible without quoting it every now and then.
Why d you make that assumption instead of asking me if I have any evidence?I can provide evidence that the New Testament is historically accurate, if you ant me to.
Now that' either a misunderstanding through not reading posts, or a flat out lie. I challenged you to list these alleged attacks and you didn't. I have never launched any such attacks. I have, on the other hand, been a recipient of many.
Once again, a bizarre misconception or a lie. You claim I have repeatedly called atheists intolerant, and yet have not produced a single quote of me doing this, despite me asking you for them.
And you believe me to be monumentally stupid? Would you like the email addresses of my tutors so you can get me chucked out of university. I'm sure they'll be grateful for you saving them so much time. Maybe grateful enough to give you my place
Stupidity is considered a crime on this board. You have completely failed to realize this. Posting stupid arguments on a board where stupidity is a crime qualifies as making an ass out of yourself.
See above. You've a lot more supporting to do than me.
Life is pretty busy at the moment. I'll make time for Ot stuff at the weekend.
