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

[Arthur Brain]

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?

I'm wondering if you ever have...lain:

Let contradiction stand, then. :chuckle:

:kookoo:

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:

Why on earth would I want to edit it? It only underlines how untenable it is to proclaim YEC as science when it doesn't do any of the above. It doesn't employ the scientific method at all as you well know.

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

Oh, you can declare whatever you want, it can be discarded easily enough

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.

Nope, nor are you getting "lectured" either. Why on earth you think that the wiki link somehow contradicts what I've written is anyone's guess as well. It's only served to show how unscientific YEC actually is, so well done you I guess...

That's nice.

It just isn't science.

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.

The scientific approach doesn't start with an idea based on a religious belief that discards anything that doesn't fit in with it. Simple as.

You are in no position to talk about scientific illiteracy.

You talking to yourself?

 

[Right Divider]

Why on earth would I want to edit it? It only underlines how untenable it is to proclaim YEC as science when it doesn't do any of the above. It doesn't employ the scientific method at all as you well know.

And you think that the "big bang employs the scientific method"?

There are NO direct observations of the "big bang" NOR God's creating.

There is NO way to reproduce the events of either.

There are plenty of observations that directly contradict the "big bang". But that does not stop "the theory" because it is a must for atheists. You, wittingly or not, agree with them.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And you think that the "big bang employs the scientific method"?

There are NO direct observations of the "big bang" NOR God's creating.

There is NO way to reproduce the events of either.

There are plenty of observations that directly contradict the "big bang". But that does not stop "the theory" because it is a must for atheists. You, wittingly or not, agree with them.

I've already said that I'm not interested in having a conversation with you as it's pointless. Case in point being your ignorant latter. Plenty of believers have no issues with the big bang theory, evolution and an old earth. Actual science is just that and your continually bringing atheism into proceedings is not only tedious but entirely ignorant as well as irrelevant.

Have a nice day.

 

[Right Divider]

I've already said that I'm not interested in having a conversation with you as it's pointless.

The problem is YOU and not me.

Case in point being your ignorant latter. Plenty of believers have no issues with the big bang theory, evolution and an old earth.

Here we go AGAIN.... that is NOT any indication of what is TRUE or not. Just your continued use of FALLACIOUS arguments.

Actual science is just that and your continually bringing atheism into proceedings is not only tedious but entirely ignorant as well as irrelevant.

It's not the slightest bit irrelevant.

Or perhaps you know of another origin story for atheists beside the "big bang".

Have a nice day.

Thanks! You too!

 

[Arthur Brain]

The problem is YOU and not me.


Here we go AGAIN.... that is NOT any indication of what is TRUE or not. Just your continued use of FALLACIOUS arguments.


It's not the slightest bit irrelevant.

Or perhaps you know of another origin story for atheists beside the "big bang".


Thanks! You too!

No, it's you and it almost invariably is with people with usernames like yours. I expect self impressed arrogance and pomposity and I'm rarely "disappointed". Atheism is entirely irrelevant to science or to anything at hand here.

Not interested in the same ole merry go round. Alate One schooled you on the subject and she's better versed than me by a long way and you wouldn't listen to her so I'm not wasting any more time.

 

[Right Divider]

No, it's you and it almost invariably is with people with usernames like yours. I expect self impressed arrogance and pomposity and I'm rarely "disappointed". Atheism is entirely irrelevant to science or to anything at hand here.

Again your cannot focus.... the "big bang" theory is primarily an atheist construct. If you cannot understand why THEY (atheists) require this as their origin story, well....

Not interested in the same ole merry go round. Alate One schooled you on the subject and she's better versed than me by a long way and you wouldn't listen to her so I'm not wasting any more time.

Nonsense. False claims all of the time from you.

Neither the "big bang" NOR the creation account in God's Word are scientific in the sense most commonly used. Neither were observed by man, nor repeatable through experimentation.

That you prefer to side with the "big bang" is indicative of your rejection of God's Word. You claim to be a "believer" and yet constantly reject and disparage God's Word as if God is incapable of representing Himself.

Go ahead and bail out of any discussion with me... I know your real reason.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again your cannot focus.... the "big bang" theory is primarily an atheist construct. If you cannot understand why THEY (atheists) require this as their origin story, well....


Nonsense. False claims all of the time from you.

Neither the "big bang" NOR the creation account in God's Word are scientific in the sense most commonly used. Neither were observed by man, nor repeatable through experimentation.

That you prefer to side with the "big bang" is indicative of your rejection of God's Word. You claim to be a "believer" and yet constantly reject and disparage God's Word as if God is incapable of representing Himself.

Go ahead and bail out of any discussion with me... I know your real reason.

No, you don't. The reason I'm not engaging with you further is because you are a pompous, arrogant and frankly, wilfully dishonest man. To call the big bang theory a "primarily atheist construct" is just flat out ignorant also. Rejecting fundamentalism and your pompous blather is a different thing altogether. Believe as you will, your division is way off.

On that note, be well sir!

:e4e:

 

[Right Divider]

No, you don't. The reason I'm not engaging with you further is because you are a pompous, arrogant and frankly, wilfully dishonest man.

No, I am not and your opinion of me is highly flawed due to your poor choice of ideas.

To call the big bang theory a "primarily atheist construct" is just flat out ignorant also.

Wrong again. It is a view forced upon them because of their rejection of the Creator. You share far too much with them and far too little with Christians that actually believe the Word of God.

What you call "a rigid fundamentalism" is simply believing what is written. You allegorize everything in the book and then expect me to bow to that kind of ridiculous view.

Rejecting fundamentalism and your pompous blather is a different thing altogether.

The only pompous blather is coming from you.

Believe as you will, your division is way off.

Wrong again... you are consistent if nothing else.

On that note, be well sir!

I wish you the blessings of true knowledge found only in the Word of God.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I am not and your opinion of me is highly flawed due to your poor choice of ideas.


Wrong again. It is a view forced upon them because of their rejection of the Creator. You share far too much with them and far too little with Christians that actually believe the Word of God.

What you call "a rigid fundamentalism" is simply believing what is written. You allegorize everything in the book and then expect me to bow to that kind of ridiculous view.


The only pompous blather is coming from you.


Wrong again... you are consistent if nothing else.


I wish you the blessings of true knowledge found only in the Word of God.

This is why I was thankful to leave a fundamentalist church some years ago. To be fair, it wasn't so mired in young earth creationism but it was mired in a a lot else...To state that the big bang theory - or any other theory "is a view forced upon them because of their rejection of the Creator" is just mindless ignorance. Again, it's just a whole load more of the pompous arrogance I expect from hardcore fundamentalists. It doesn't work with you trying to level that at me as I'm not someone who can't have a laugh at himself or even own up to blunders on occasion. I don't expect you to "bow" to anything. I don't expect you to even question anything that contradicts your belief system or recognize your arrogance with the term "Christians that actually believe the Word of God", as if anyone who differs with your belief somehow doesn't.

It's pointless carrying on the discussion further as you're entrenched. Unfortunately, that's one of the traits of fundamentalism. Mindless adherence to an actual man made belief system.

 

[Idolater]

This is why I was thankful to leave a fundamentalist church some years ago. To be fair, it wasn't so mired in young earth creationism but it was mired in a a lot else...To state that the big bang theory - or any other theory "is a view forced upon them because of their rejection of the Creator" is just mindless ignorance. Again, it's just a whole load more of the pompous arrogance I expect from hardcore fundamentalists. It doesn't work with you trying to level that at me as I'm not someone who can't have a laugh at himself or even own up to blunders on occasion. I don't expect you to "bow" to anything. I don't expect you to even question anything that contradicts your belief system or recognize your arrogance with the term "Christians that actually believe the Word of God", as if anyone who differs with your belief somehow doesn't.

It's pointless carrying on the discussion further as you're entrenched. Unfortunately, that's one of the traits of fundamentalism. Mindless adherence to an actual man made belief system.

In case you didn't know Catholicism accepts variety in what we believe about origins. I myself am young-earth (viz. that God made the world with "apparent age", i o w I believe the science) but plenty of good Catholics believe in Big Bang and evolution. Big tent, the Church is, in that regard, f y i, i c y m i & f w i w. Peace.

 

[7djengo7]

I think you're slightly obsessed.

Why are you so obsessed with trying to support Arthur Brain in his shameless, blatant lying? If you really would like to clear him from the true charge I've been levelling against him--viz., that he is lying when he says he has answered the yes-or-no question I've asked him at least eight times--feel free to try to quote him saying either "Yes" or "No" in response to it. Of course, as you and I both know well, you have no hope of doing that, because, since Arthur Brain has never answered the question, it's impossible for anybody to quote him answering it. But what is that to shameless liars like Arthur Brain and yourself? As is your custom, you'll just keep your ears plugged, and repeat your shameless, blatant lying, by merely repeating the falsehood that he's answered the question. And, doubtless, you'll try to console yourselves in your failure by continuing with your sad, Pee-wee Herman-esque attempts at rejoinder.

 

[annabenedetti]

Why are you so obsessed with trying to support Arthur Brain in his shameless, blatant lying? If you really would like to clear him from the true charge I've been levelling against him--viz., that he is lying when he says he has answered the yes-or-no question I've asked him at least eight times--feel free to try to quote him saying either "Yes" or "No" in response to it. Of course, as you and I both know well, you have no hope of doing that, because, since Arthur Brain has never answered the question, it's impossible for anybody to quote him answering it. But what is that to shameless liars like Arthur Brain and yourself? As is your custom, you'll just keep your ears plugged, and repeat your shameless, blatant lying, by merely repeating the falsehood that he's answered the question. And, doubtless, you'll try to console yourselves in your failure by continuing with your sad, Pee-wee Herman-esque attempts at rejoinder.

I'm sorry you're having a sad.

 

[7djengo7]

I'm sorry you're having a sad.

Oops. Looks like I ticked you off. Oh well.

 

[Stripe]

The scientific approach doesn't start with an idea based on a religious belief that discards anything that doesn't fit in with it.

As luck would have it, nobody (except you) has said that it does.

Moreover, we adhere to the scientific method in that we have ideas that we hold up to the evidence.

You, on the other hand, just declare things to be so and stamp your feet whenever someone exposes you for the illiterate moron that you are.

 

[Stripe]

Brain: I'm not talking to you.

Also Brain: *addresses five more posts to same user*

:chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

This is why I was thankful to leave a fundamentalist church some years ago. To be fair, it wasn't so mired in young earth creationism but it was mired in a a lot else...To state that the big bang theory - or any other theory "is a view forced upon them because of their rejection of the Creator" is just mindless ignorance.

What other choice do atheists have? They, like you, do not accept God's own explanation of His creation... so that's where they stand, along with you.

Again, it's just a whole load more of the pompous arrogance I expect from hardcore fundamentalists. It doesn't work with you trying to level that at me as I'm not someone who can't have a laugh at himself or even own up to blunders on occasion. I don't expect you to "bow" to anything. I don't expect you to even question anything that contradicts your belief system or recognize your arrogance with the term "Christians that actually believe the Word of God", as if anyone who differs with your belief somehow doesn't.

I, like many others, was raised to believe in "evolution". I came out of that fundamentalism due to studying for myself.

I have an honest question for you (though one that you will probably also take offense to):

Is Genesis 1:1 allegory?​

Gen 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It's pointless carrying on the discussion further as you're entrenched. Unfortunately, that's one of the traits of fundamentalism. Mindless adherence to an actual man made belief system.

You will eventually find that you are the mindless adherent to a man-mode belief system.

 

[ok doser]

Oops. Looks like I ticked you off. Oh well.

Silly anna-girl, throwing tantrums

 

[annabenedetti]

Silly anna-girl, throwing tantrums

:chuckle: Silly sod, pretending a one-liner is a tantrum. You must be bored.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As luck would have it, nobody (except you) has said that it does.

Moreover, we adhere to the scientific method in that we have ideas that we hold up to the evidence.

You, on the other hand, just declare things to be so and stamp your feet whenever someone exposes you for the illiterate moron that you are.

No you don't. You start off with an unshakable conviction that the earth and universe can only be so old because of a blinkered religious belief. You've already done away with the scientific method by having a determined conclusion to start with. That's the opposite of how the scientific method actually works. :doh:

You only entertain ideas that fit in with the determined conclusion and ignore/discard the plethora of actual science that undermines it. You know as much about science as you do about law.

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm sorry you're having a sad.

Eh, just let "LOL Boy" get on with it. Ain't worth the time...