Reply With Quote
see god does exist!
No its opinion
Define Opinion:
a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty
I always said that I was open minded I always said that I was willing to listen to the other side but that I had formed an opinion based on both sides of the argument, biased or not. My book has never closed and is always open to new interpretations.
You mistake sarcasm, at ude and opinion for hypocrisy.
see god does exist!
If you hadn't of smuggly asked for links, I'd believe you. But you did. And I gave you some from a creationist website only for you to belittle me despite the strong material.
You're a hypocrite but it's okay. I get that all the time - my sources will never be good enough for you because they don't share share your bias.
Last edited by z0sa; 10-22-2009 at 12:53 PM.
Had you provided me a link from a more neutral site I wouldn't have said anything to you about it. I still read your site. I still read your link. I still didn't call him a fraud. I merely pointed out that it was from a site with a non-scientific agenda.
You're arguing semantics because you want to rub it in my face. Which is fine only that I never said your link was bad info. Never said it was unfounded facts. Just questioned it as a scientifically un-biased approach to research. Questioned their motives and...how could I not.
I formed an opinion. Sorry.
If it makes you feel better. Your guy was right.
If it makes you feel better. You can call me a hypocrite but I'm not going to acknowledge that for you personal benefit because I don't agree with it. All I ever said was that guys like that (creationist types) should attempt to look at things more for face value of a significant find rather than look at it as an attempt to discredit the other side. Misdirected energy with no purpose.
I also don't think it was "smug" of me to ask for links considering you just rattled off a bunch of googled . Is it really that insulting to ask where your info comes from? Last I checked it wasn't unreasonable to want to see what the other side is reading.
Your just defensive.
That statement has problems. Why can't you just have an open mind? Besides, what I gave you is better than linking neutral sites in that it presents an argument against the actions of so called "Ida apologists." The main problem it highlighted was that highly influential en ies like the Discovery Channel, with a large audience, perpetuated at best a strong exaggeration.
Where's your outrage for this?
Who's preaching semantics now?I still read your site. I still read your link. I still didn't call him a fraud.
I disagree completely. In fact, that (Science Against Evolution) is one of my favorite sites because it has a unifying creationist science concept (including 75 creationist theses), and rarely ventures outside of the natural evidence for a different interpretation. If there's an "unbiased" creationist site, that one is it. Because of an unfounded presupposition, you simply assumed it was "non-scientific".I merely pointed out that it was from a site with a non-scientific agenda.
And this begs the question: who are you to decide what is scientific? When the creationist scientists who contribute/run these websites make statements and question evidence, isn't real science occurring just like when mainstream science questions itself?
Like I said earlier, if I bought what you've been telling me thus far today, I'd have never even brought it up and probably wouldn't consider you a hypocrite. But then, you approached the idea of non-creationist scientists writing off Ida almost voraciously and followed up with a predictable response when I linked a creationist site that contained the valid information.You're arguing semantics because you want to rub it in my face.
It isn't biased against science or conflicting views. It simply questions the actual science itself.Which is fine only that I never said your link was bad info. Never said it was unfounded facts. Just questioned it as a scientifically un-biased approach to research.
I understand you formed an opinion. Because of how you formed it ... ah nevermind. WGAF. If you're just going to deny deny deny and keep moving the goal posts, it.I formed an opinion. Sorry.
I have argued time and time again that the Discovery channel is a massively biased media outlet. Particularly when it comes to Christianity. I agree with you that there's a lot of sensationalized views on a range of topics coming out of there.
I said your guy was right. I said I read the link.
I'm not going to bow down to a creationist site because they're view on one discovery turned out to be relatively accurate. Seriously man you won a battle not the war.
I couldn't respond in time, and you worded it in a way that made you come off that way.
When you question the integrity of the source without reason ..Last I checked it wasn't unreasonable to want to see what the other side is reading.
Like I said, WGAF. mainstream media and science will continue perpetrating lies, and you won't give a damn until our next origins topic, at which time the newest finding X will be the new and more infallible proof you are right, and I am wrong.
Carry on.
How many ing times do I have to say it? How many, seriously, before you ing understand? I don't think every single finding is the next definitive proof of evolution over creation. All I ever said is that any finding should be looked at as "significant" (from both sides) to the understanding of where and how we came about.
WGAF?
We all do.
Other than being well-preserved, what is significant about Ida?
I'd say the vast majority of people don't give a , honestly. Why should we? Humans will never escape our solar system, or at absolute earth-shakingly best, galaxy no matter what theories you juxtapose. There's an overwhelming chance any life out there that would prove our religions horribly wrong exists in another galaxy, the closest of which is millions of light years away. You can't go faster than the speed of light, and even that's ing incredibly fast and unimaginably hard to prepare for, so we are stuck in this solar system for the rest of our existence as humans before the earth inevitably a) burns up b)gets thrown out of the milky way by a predicted galactic collision or c) baby jesus allah and tom cruise come down and save us.WGAF?
We all do.
This is exactly why I created AD (alternative Design) We don't support Evolution and we don't used the Bible or creationism to make our points.
We merely feel there is something else out that could be responsible for life on planet earth or in this solar system. We also believe there could very well be life in their solar systems. Another words we are open minded but not totally ignorant. We try to make our points w/o all the school yard insults but have no problem pulling out the Alternative Design smack bat when needed.
Our main goal is to get the lies out of the text books(something we all should support) and maybe give the students another view on how we came about without them having to only worship Darwin.
As long as the text books show the holes and gaps in evolution and admit carbon dating and Fossils don't prove evolution, and there is no real scientific fact that proves the earth is 4 billion years old and that evolution is a fact when really it's just a religion just like creationism. Then we can all move froward and work together in finding out the truth.
Mark Allen
founder of AD Alternative Design.
Last edited by mouse; 10-22-2009 at 03:03 PM.
You're right we should stop caring. Should have stopped after we discovered that the world was flat.
Any well preserved finding could provide significant theory altering information. Its important. You can't be this naive.
According to cosmological models that better explain 'dark flow,' the universe could be flat ..
Yeah, I've yet to wrap my head around it either, and could be wrong but they sure did make it seem that way.. I'm hunting for the article right now..
I'm sure you can find plenty of well preserved lemurs at the zoo.Any well preserved finding could provide significant theory altering information. Its important. You can't be this naive.
I don't need the link. I've read the flat theory, its all very interesting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions