Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[Arthur Brain]

You can certainly pass for one.

Why? Because I don't believe that the earth is only ten thousand years old or go along with fundamentalism? Your division skills are lacking again.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then you have chosen wisely.

Eh, unlike you, I'm not a pompous man with the need to attempt to advertise how clever he is with a pompous username. So, yeah, plus I can have a laugh at myself.

No kidding? Really?

Hey, you didn't even get the joke...

Did you not say that man is descended from apes?

That you are the descendant of some single celled creature?

No, I didn't actually say any of that.

Just listening to what you say.

Um, no you aren't but if you really want to learn about science then there's still Alate One's latest kicking about I think?

:thumb:

 

[Right Divider]

Why? Because I don't believe that the earth is only ten thousand years old or go along with fundamentalism? Your division skills are lacking again.

I take it that you do not have a clue about my username.

You basically throw out any history recorded in God's Word. You have that in common with atheists.

 

[Right Divider]

No, I didn't actually say any of that.

I thought that you believed in the "theory of evolution".

Have you changed your mind?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I take it that you do not have a clue about my username.

You basically throw out any history recorded in God's Word. You have that in common with atheists.

Well you're certainly not dividing anything up correctly with these exchanges. I'm not doing anything of the sort but I threw off the shackles of fundamentalism a long time ago.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I thought that you believed in the "theory of evolution".

Have you changed your mind?

No and...no.

 

[annabenedetti]

You can certainly pass for one.

He's not an atheist.

I notice you spend all your time attacking him for not being the 'right kind' of believer and no time acknowledging the holes in the genealogies.

 

[Right Divider]

Well you're certainly not dividing anything up correctly with these exchanges. I

Says the "Christian" that rejects basically all Bible history.

 

[Right Divider]

He's not an atheist.

He's just an unbeliever, like you.

I notice you spend all your time attacking him for not being the 'right kind' of believer and no time acknowledging the holes in the genealogies.

:rotfl:

 

[Arthur Brain]

He's not an atheist.

I notice you spend all your time attacking him for not being the 'right kind' of believer and no time acknowledging the holes in the genealogies.

Hey, I think you meant to quote RD?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Says the "Christian" that rejects basically all Bible history.

Um, no and you're really dismantling about now...

 

[annabenedetti]

Hey, I think you meant to quote RD?

Whoops. :chuckle:

Yeah, guess I better go fix that...

 

[Arthur Brain]

He's just an unbeliever, like you.


:rotfl:

Well, that was immature, dishonest, juvenile, bonkers...

Fun in its own way I suppose.

:rain:

 

[ok doser]

He can't prove they're all real people, or that the two geneologies are in the right chronological order, he has to take it on faith. That's where his defense lives, there is no proof, only faith. He could just accept that and say "I know there's no way to prove they're all real people, but I take it on faith that they're all real people" and I could at least respect his belief even if I didn't share it - and conversely, he could accept that not all people will take a "flexible" and "fluid" genealogy as a historically accurate account.

Was Jesus a real person?

 

[annabenedetti]

Was Jesus a real person?

Yes. Beyond that not interested in discussing anything with you, so don't bother.

 

[ok doser]

Yes.

Were His parents Mary and Joseph?

 

[Right Divider]

Yeah, cos a talking snake just has to be literal...

lain:

So do you also believe that Jesus was not raised from the death? Is that also just "allegory"?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So do you also believe that Jesus was not raised from the death? Is that also just "allegory"?

No, but frankly I'm not interested cos it's pointless having a discussion with you.

 

[Right Divider]

No, but frankly I'm not interested cos it's pointless having a discussion with you.

Raised or not?

 

[Stripe]

Um, who do you think I was referring to with the word "dope"?

I always just assume it's a self-reference.

Moreover, I don't think you even know what you're talking about anymore. :idunno:

Do you even follow your own posts?

Of course not.

Let contradiction stand, then. :chuckle:

That's your remit.

The scientific method:

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge... It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

Even Wiki, which you could now go and edit, disagrees with you. :chuckle:

You don't get to declare what counts as "scientific" by any stretch.

Of course I do. And you get to declare what I'm not allowed to declare. :chuckle:

Of course it's relevant. A theory in science is far removed from general usage of the term.

Of course it's irrelevant. You do not even know what the scientific method is, yet you want to lecture me on what a theory is.

Young earth creationism is simply not science.

That's nice.

It's based on a fundamental belief...

As you've seen, the source of an idea has no rational place in deciding whether it should be tossed out. Not in the scientific approach, at least.

You are in no position to talk about scientific illiteracy.