DISCLAIMER PLEASE READ:
This is NOT meant to start a heated debate, although I have no control over what comes of this. I am going to post a conversation I've been having with someone and I want your take on my responses from both an analytical view and that of which you believe I am answering in a rational manner. I want to know if I am adressing the subject matter properly and if I am making sense and possibly where I could improve. This thread isnt meant to be a self improvement thing, hence it is afterall Intellectual Discussion, but I want to know for once in my life If I am actually coming from a point of rationality in both the eyes of the intellects of TFF and belivers in god (as god and evolution are not mutually exclusive).
Another reason for me posting this is that I need some help on learning how to deal with this because I see this person regularly and I dont want to even talk about this but its pissing me off because he looks down on me with this arrogance which is totally unwarranted and its anoyying, id rather not talk about it at all but he insists. And yes, you win Alpha, I can totally relate to my past behaviour in poking and prodding people about their beliefs, some things are just better left unsaid because I seriously cannot give two shits anymore.
Let me know how I handled this or how I should have handled this.
Mr.j: Atheists will try and make fun of the bible because they just dont believe anything it says , but that belief comes from miseducation not proof, theyl tell u things like the earth was flat according to the bible.. when infact that is a lie the hebrew clearly says the word 'sphere' . See its easy to disprove the bible to an uneducated atheist because the uneducated atheist will never read the bible so he himself has to go off what other people say. So majority of atheists believe in evolution because its what is taught in public schools .. and to the general public its sounds rational because there are no uneducated atheists that study wether the theory is just theory or wether its proven fact... and I will agree with you 100% that u cannot prove a miracle , but u cannot prove the evolution of the world over millions of years either . Both sides have the same evidences like in a court of law . But one is theory against the possibility' of evolution and the other has actual historic proof and theory based on observational science.
Me: In the pursuit of knowledge and truth Im open to ideas but as I said, I'll treat them as such and make up my own mind just as you have. You must understand that it's hard for me to accept information that would contradict that of someone whom I look Upto with great respect, especially when they are an expert in their field. I was just trying to get my point across that what Lawrence Krause works towards is something beyond our comprehension because I could not possibly foresee how something could come from nothing, but he really does and is close to actually proving it, which will be amazing to see and a possible game changer to the world of physics.
Mr.J:Being close to proving anything is not proof and string theory is just another theory with no explanation other than assupmtions.. if u ask me if there is a God I will tell u yes under my assumption which I cant prove, krause gives great compeling assumptions too but until proven it remains theory just like god does, fact is im not trying to prove wether there is a god or not im using scientific data to see how old the earth is how the layers for . How we have not yet reached equilibrium as far as c14 (carbon analysis) wich scince equation studying it like as a matter of present day events has to be withing 30000 years and it gets younger the more we understand radiometric dating. my good friend this is wat im trying to share to the world .. that there are vicious lies being taught about science evolution and religion to keep us subservient and make us believe we can achieve god like beings in the far future..
Eg . Catholic church=evil doctrine Christian church =peaceful doctrine Macro evolution =lies Microevolution=truth Etc etc
He then linked me to a video of a man named Kent Hovind, which I regrettably spent time watching.
Me: Hey Mr.J, I finished watchign a few of those videos and the whole time I was thinking, "i WISH this guy was putting these propositions toward someone like Richard Dawkins"
as for the quality of these propositions put fourth by kent hovind, I can only speculate because I dont understand the subject matter to have a valid opinion, especially when the responses arnt typically in a fasion I understand either.
interesting, nevertheless
Kent hovind is a conspiracy theorist though, is he not? I dont buy into a lot of that stuff man, contrart to what you might believe..
Mr.J: Kent hovind is not a conspiracy theorist although claims have been made on public domains such as Wikipedia .. which I think thats where ur conclusion comes from. And he wouldv debated richard dorkins but richard refused the debate.. along with many other scientists. . Kent hovind is a paleontologist, and also devoted his life to science along with countless other creation scientists. And im glad u havent drawn a coclusion based on wikipedia .. u have my respect for that , however I have studied the subject matter and I do understand his scientific evidence .. ill send u another link on other top atheist scientists that covert to creationist origins (not through belief obvioulsy theyre atheist ) throught the study of science and evolution.. so in other word u tell me that u dont understand the subject matter of the proof but u do understand the subject matter on the theory based on the conjuction of the same subject matter? One being radiometric dating , fossils etc etc And its cool if u dont buy it... but how can u buy' something just as theoretical.... im not trying to make u believe in God . I cant do that maybe never could.. what I am pointing out is that evolution is not scientific. . It is not science and it is only a theory.. once u can begin to understand the conceptuality of that then my point would be met. Did u not say that if it wasnt for evolution there would be no such subjects as paleontology? Biochemistry? Molecular biology ? There are many fields in science that dont rely on the theory of evolution tonnes and if evolution was never thought of all these fields would still be apparent..
Me: Yeah sure I accept there are many forms of science that do not rely on evolution or that have stemmed from other avenues, but my point is that if evolution is such a lie, then huge fields such as biology are worth nothing, in your words because such a science relies on the theory of evolution, which is as observable and evident as gravity (which is to say that its testable, observable and repeatable) the three main methods of scientific testing which are based on data which is recognized as fact. For every atheist turned creationist, I can account for with other videos and documentation of creationist turned atheist, both in the field of sciences and without. So we will get nowhere comparing conversions because those kind of conversions actually favor creationists turning to atheism. And just so we are clear, and I am VERY certain of this, atheism is the 'lack' of belief in a god, which can also be phrased as the rejection based on lack of evidence. Agnosticism is just a fence sitting term created to confuse people's idealogy. As I have said before and you also agreed with, unless you beleive in a god with absolute conviction (100% certainty), you are an atheist. So an atheist job not to prove it doesnt exist, but to remain on the side that is confident it does not, because of a lack of evidence. You know why I dont like to use the term, because people are often confused by it, and rightfully so, because its been linked with the term heretic, which is essentially the same thing, one who lacks belief in a god. The problem I have with some of these sceintists, is that amoung all sceientsits who are currently still working within their field, these are recognized as frauds. The fact that hovind was convicted of fraud (whether its true or not, is another debate) furthar goes to show more about his character and im inclined to believe that purely based on the fact that there is absolutley no logical reason not too that doesn't fall u nder the catagory of conspiracy, which as I've mentioned to you, I dont buy into. If you were to compare someone like hovind to Dawkins of whom I hold in very high regard due to his achievments in his field, I was immediately take the side of dawkins based on his contributions and devotion to the field over the course of his entire life. How can you argue that? How could you argue that science proves a science wrong, when someone like dawkins would simply contradict you? I know drop his name a lot, but its because I dont know many evolutionary biologists, but I know that his contribtions are recognized all over the world. Comparatively speaking, you could sugguest to me that there is a scientist who disagrees with him, but unless I actually could test these sciences for myself with the aid of tools and the like that are used by such biologists, I couldnt even then be able to tell you what I was seeing, i would still need someone who is qualified to explain it to me, therefor the argument that science explains why evolution is bullshit is completely lost on me, and I can only go to me best source, which is the work of Dawkins. I actually have a few of his books which are really informative to someone like me who is not a scientist, but is a written in a way I can understand. If you would like I could reccomend these books to you, because if you have read them perhaps you would come to the same conclusion I have...
Mr j: Evolution is not science. ... look at the termenology of science.. creation is not science either.. amd I dont claim that but biology has nothing to do with macro evolution, thats silly. There are tons of creationist scientist who study biology .. but biology does not need the theory of evolution to be apparent .. Dawkins is famous because he pushed darwenism that is it . All these other scientists have given their life to their fields fame does not strengthen credability ... fact is you dont want to believe that there is another possibility , because in your head u are 100 percent certain in your head that evolution is real, congratulations u have just fallen into the catagory of a religion which u have faith' in ..Wikipedia is owned by darwenist corporations.. this is why you cant rely of this type of domain for accurately scientific evidence.. if u look up the term evolution. It is a theory base on biological analysis it doesnt mean that biochemistry would be obsolete without evolution.. quite the contrary without biology and biochemistry the evolution theory cannot be studied.. but looking for terms like evolution on a darwenist site will tell u that evolution is fact it never states that its a theory.. and that is wrong. Its not true and its a vicious lie. Evolution is not science get it through your head bro.. its a theory studied with the tools of science. How do u explain trees found upside down and also trees upright going through strata supposedly millions of years .. tell me . How are fossils formed? Well one way they cannot form is being exposed to oxygen.. thats a fact. . They are either impressions on clay (foot prints ) or bones found in rock.. alot of which have remains of skin and organs .. meaning quick deaths by landslide or mud. When evolutionists say an asteroid wiped them out usually telling is that tidal waves or water caused their fall. Because near impact zones ther is no evidence as any living thing wouldv been disintegrated. Which leave the question of the different ages of when certain dinosaurs lived .. one being that large carnivorous dinosaurs didnt live at the same time as large long necks that we knew from what layers of strata they had been found .. but new discoveries show that mamoths have been found in the same layers as the t rex .. witch tell us that they lived at the same time... hope im not losing u... and the mamoth we kno that it lived at the time of humans.. that is fact we have evidence of this as humans have been found in alaska in the same layers and the mamoths have been found with spears in them.. so suddenly we have a dicrepency in evolution of millions of years . Stating that certain dinosaurs without a doubt have lived with humans or at the same time. Different civilisations have wall carvings of dinosaurs including american indians to the temples of angkor wat with I myself have visited and seen ..all civilisations have stories and artifacts talking about dinosaurs or dragons. Including alexander the great , marco polo (which they mention in their books with great detail to be alive in their time) and hundrends more , many of which have been respected historians with such credentials they are used as a part of science history.. all of which mention dinosaurs before any dinosaur skeleton was ever found by modern archeologists.. how can we explain that... Wev been lied to believe there are races higher than others.. and was widely published around the time of slavery.. u can continue to believe a theory that is constantly renewing itself and has lied to u thats fine I really dont care... u have been conditioned and brought up to a certain belief and agenda. This is why natives are wiped out because they contain facts and secrets that wouldv shattered darwenist conquerors. . This is the same reason religion is rediculed because they want to impose this new way of thinkin the new world 'order' . They want the whole world to hang off their every word and I believe that alot of good scientists have themselves been misled to keep the theory alive .. because when people sart forgetting its just theory it becomes fact in people head... I think u have to do alot more reasearch in both fields and history to start to bteak away from traditional engrainment and start seeing the bigger picture of truth... evidential truth.
Me Sorry Mr.J but if you believe natives were wiped out because they hold secrets to the past then I can't convince you otherwise. Thats conspiracy theory talk. I don't mean offence it's just I disagree with you. You keep telling me the facts are there but you don't give them to me, you link me to frauds and non respected scientist and then continue to tell me that I'm the one that's brainwashed. Is it really unreasonable and unexpected that I would take the word of a respected scientist over a scientist who believes in supernatural occurrences and government conspiracies? I don't think that im making an irrational choice all things considered... Unless you can prove to me gravity is a lie, I have no reason to assume evolution is. Because neither theory can be proven to certainty, yet here were are... Not floating ibto space..
mr.J Richard dawkins is respected by darwenists because they fund him... There is no conspiracy here. The only conspiracy is people thinking that there are race is theworld lesser than ours in the human race when in fact that was proven wrong by evolutionist which he said there is only 1 race that is the human race.All the facts that i have told you you take for lies or fraudulent information. . That Is your faith getting in the way of scientific reason and logic . The end of the day i am not interested converting you because you sir are the 1 that has been brainwashed. Myth legend n history 3 different things i think you should study more history. Im done debating a rock with theory based faith.
If you made it here then I thank you and await your feedback, but at this point if the topic ever emerges with him again, then I will just refuse to discuss it as I believe im talking to someone who has literally lost their mind. What I really want to know is, during this entire subject, Were any points made? Theres certain people I'm really hoping to chime in on this one
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks