any creationists about?

[(Q)]

I gave up on Jan when attempting to explain that hydrogen can be extracted from water and water is a byproduct from the combustion of hydrogen. Jan simply refused to believe this possible even when evidence was placed before him. It was then I realized Jan could not possibly think rationally, even for the sake of argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

First of all, look how you address me..A Darn Jane. What's that all about? My character name is Jan Ardena.

It is a somewhat witty anagram of your name intended to make you the object of ridicule. I resorted to this tactic after your blatant refusal to obey any of the accepted rules of proper debate. Change your habits and I shall change my style of communication.

Also note, that I was not addressing you, but the larger sciforums audience.

And then you attack me by using me as an example of the evolutionary limitations of intelligence.

Something you are fully deserving of, so what's your point?

How do you expect me to take this response seriously from the outset? Come on.

I don't expect you take it seriously. It was not targeted at you. It was a warning to other posters and lurkers as to the underhand methods you practice.

You then seek to demonstrate that you are not guilty of the practices I have accused you of. Charles has illustrated some of these very effectively in a recent post, so I see no need to other than refer you to that post.

5) My intention when asking questions, is to gain a good understanding of where people are coming from. All too often, debaters assume they know what their opponent (for want of a better word), is all about. I find with atheists especially, religion=christian, therefore if you believe in God then you must be christian, regardless. They then argue from that perspective and subsequently destroy any chance of a reasonable discussion.

Point 1: I am not an atheist.
Point 2: [COLOR=DarkRed]If you will not, despite repeated requests, implicit and explicit, reveal what your religious standpoint is, then yes we are forced to make assumptions about what your beliefs are. Is that too difficult to understand? [/COLOR] Multiple hostile, some might say homicidal (but truly blood curdling) expletives deleted at this point out of self respect, not out of any regard for Jan.

If you wish to cling to this unwarranted mud-slinging attack of a crusade, then that is your business.

Thank you for your permission to continue.
]

As I stated before, I don't know you from Adam, and as such, despite your rudeness, I cannot be personally affected by it.

Mores the pity.
]

I am MAN enough to apologise for any offense I may have inadvertantly caused you. I had rather hoped you could be also, but it seems you aren't.

Point 1: It would be a nice gesture of politeness to advice us as to your gender. While it has no bearing on the meat of the debate, it would allow us to address you and refer to you correctly. I have been left with the impression you are female. Your pointed emphasis of MAN above, suggests you are not. Please clarify.
Point 2:I unreservedly apologise for any and all the offense I may have inadvertently caused you. I do not apologise for any of the offense I have deliberately caused you, for that was well considered and intentional.

I find it almost incoceivable that you could be unaware of the frustration and rage that your dishonest debating tactics generate amongst other posters on these forums. Enough of them have told you of it, that you would have to be mentally deranged to be unaware of it. Please do not play yet another trick by pretending to be the offended party.

You are a hypocrite.
You are a nasty piece of work.
Goodnight.

 

[Ophiolite]

(Q), do you recall what thread the hydrogen incident was in? I should love to read that as part of a reality check.

 

[(Q)]

It was some time ago, O. One of us will have to do a search.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll look for it, but if you run across it in the meantime let me know. Thanks.

 

[Jan Ardena]

charles cure,

because if you believe that the bible is flawed, then you dont believe that it is not flawed.

I've already told you that I do.

if you believe that the bible is not flawed, then having that belief by definition means that you think the bible does not have flaws.

Not really.
Something can be flawed, but still maintain its use.
Wouldn't you agree?

if you hold those beliefs simultaneously, they cancel each other out and you wind up believing nothing.

It depends how you look at it.

this nullification means that you have no official point of view about the bible since you neither believe or disbelieve that it is flawed or not flawed

If you read my post carefully you would see that I do believe the bible is both flawed and not flawed.

"For your information I believe the bible to be both flawed and not flawed,.."

If, indeed you have read it carefully, then you are being totally dishonest by trying to portray me as someone who doesn't know what it is they're saying.

since you are putting this forward now, that means that all along your argument has had no point, because you have not taken a stance, despite the fact that you did take a stance while attempting to challenge my assertions that the bible is a flawed document.

My point was to find out why you thought the bible was flawed, you never asked me what I thought, and as such it entitled me to give away as much of my understanding as I saw fit. That's the problem with your kind of approach, you think you already know what the other persons position is, so you blunder about like a bull in china shop, then get angry when your oponent points out your obvious errors in thinking.

what i mean is that you have no standard of acceptable proof.

Acceptable by whom? You?

i have offered reasons time and again to prove my points and they are material and valid.

Because something has been translated time and time again, isn't PROOF that it is flawed. As I said, I do understand your point, and agree that it is entirely possible and probable, but it does not constitute proof.

however, your convenient counter-argument to that is almost always, "that doesnt disprove my point"

Where have I said this?

or "i dont accept that"

Same as above.

so, basically what you are saying is that you, and only you, for no apparent reason, reject a commonly accepted standard for providing evidence to either support or rebutt a particular claim.

You didn't say that that provides evidence, you said the bible IS flawed because....
I am entitled to ask, where is the flaw to be found within the documents, as to you it is a fact.

you make assertions and do not provide evidence, but instead endlessly question the reasoning provided by someone else for rejecting your premise, while deflecting the burden of proof away from yourself.

Lets have a look at the post which promted a reply from you;

I am not a creationist (institutionally), but please state what you believe is flawed about the translated document, then we'll take it from there.

Jan.

Where is there a;

a) an assertion
b) premise
c) need to provide evidence

for example, i have not seen you provide even one miniscule shred of evidence for the existence of god or the perfect nature of the bible,

That is not where I am coming from. The thread is not concerned about scientific evidence for the existence of God, or the perfect nature of the bible. It is concerned with creationists, and how they percieve the bible.

instead you just continuously deny the validity of the response to the question that you originally posited. in asking me to provide reasons why i think the bible is flawed, you engage in the debate on the opposite side of me.

If you make a claim then it is reasonable to expect an explanation. Your explanation gave good reason as to why the document may be flawed, but not proof. Therefore there is no reason, on the strength of your claim, why a creationist could not take the document literally.

however, you do not argue for the position you have taken, or against me, you just assert that the argument i am making is somehow invalid or does not speak to the issue you have raised, yet you provide no reasoning for that position either.

Your reason is not enough to render the bible a flawed document to the point where the creationist is obviously (knowingly to himself) barking up the wrong tree. This is obvious, as creationists still do believe the bible is correct. If you still maintain your position, then it is one of a personal opinion, and as such is invalid in light of your definate claim. My position is to understand, from you, the actual flaw, not an explanation as to why it may well be flawed.

why dont you instead come up with some support for your own side of the debate?

Originally Posted by longlostlady
wishing to cause no insult to anyone.....please PLEASE explain how this set of beliefs is in ANY way credible?

i mean, taking the literal word of a flawed, translated document as actual truth? huh?

please, I'd love someone to explain....

There is no debate, and it was never intended to be a debate.
Like yourself, she assumed that the translated document was flawed, thereby attempting to make chumps out creationists beliefs.
My point was to try and understand why this is a forgone conclusion.

We all know there is no current "scientific evidence" to support this belief, but, that is the basis of religions such as islam and christianity. And the reason there is a "Religion" forum on SciForums.

no, what you mean is that there is little or no factual evidence to support your belief, whether gleaned through a scientific process or otherwise.

Personally i disagree, but I am not prepared to go into any discussion of this sort, on this thread, or any thread where there is no reasonable debate, or attempt to understand how it may well be possible that scientific evidence is not the be all end all of knowledge.

genetics i think, is where the answer to your question lies. the transition between one species and another is not a hard thing to envision,

Fair enough.

..if religion was a logical philosophy i would have no problem with it, but it is a different thing entirely, an unproven premise around which is built a theoretical framework used to arbitrarily define morality for the purposes of supporting self-serving laws and other social constructs.

I honestly don't think you;
1) understand the real meaning of religion, and
2) want to understand its real meaning.
You have already displayed this.

if you engage in discussion about religion with any person, person of science or not, you must provide reasoning for the position you take. as far as i can see you have not done that at all.

It is very difficult to have a reasonable discussion or debate about religion on this forum (at present). Unfortunately, the lack of moderatership means the majority will always shout the loudest, for the longest period of time. The majority here, are ignorant, explicit atheists, who will employ any tactic to keep the discussions to a "chimps tea-party" level.

there can be no deeper discussion on religion if all that results is a stalemate where one side says "here is my assertion and here is its support" and the other side responds: "i dont think you proof is valid and even if it was, it does not refute my point directly, because the subject we are discussing is irrational and somehow beyond the realm of logic".

When asked what is religion, some bright spark usually post a dictionary definition, which becomes the standard to which all discussions must apply to.

It is reasonable to assume that an atheist may not be aware of all the implication of what the real meaning of religion is. That, by their constitutional position, they see it entirely from their percpective, and are not prepared to see it from any other percpective. This is the reason why no deep discussion can take place.

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

My point was to find out why you thought the bible was flawed, you never asked me what I thought, and as such it entitled me to give away as much of my understanding as I saw fit. That's the problem with your kind of approach, you think you already know what the other persons position is, so you blunder about like a bull in china shop, then get angry when your oponent points out your obvious errors in thinking..

This is a classic example of why I consider you beneath contempt and a pimple on the arse of humanity.
You refuse to make your position on anything clear and then castigate other posters for making reasonable assumptions based upon what you have said.

This is dishonest.
This is wrong.
This is the product of a sick, self aggrandising mind.

You disgust me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ophiolite,

You refuse to make your position on anything clear and then castigate other posters for making reasonable assumptions based upon what you have said.

Could my position be any clearer?

I am not a creationist (institutionally),...

I am basing my view on the what the bible is claimed to be,

Before we carry, on should tell you that I am neither a christian or creationist.

I haven't specified a belief (other than in God).

Reasonable assumptions?
This is cracking material.
I like you, you are funny, i'll give you that.

Jan.

 

[Anomalous]

Hey WatchOut Ophiolite, I know Jan very well, she is quite resonable.

 

[Anomalous]

Jan Aderna,

If U believe in Evolution then Bible is Flawed.

I didnt read it but I think
Bible says, God created Man first and Woman later.

The first cells that formed could reproduce asexually, ie. they had offsprings without males, men came later on.

Doesnt this make Bible wrong ?

 

[Ophiolite]

Hey WatchOut Ophiolite, I know Jan very well, she is quite resonable.

The kiss of death.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Aderna,

If U believe in Evolution then Bible is Flawed.

I didnt read it but I think
Bible says, God created Man first and Woman later.

The first cells that formed could reproduce asexually, ie. they had offsprings without males, men came later on.

Doesnt this make Bible wrong ?

What makes you think that the first life was produced on earth?
Or that man and woman were the first created beings?

Jan.

 

[Anomalous]

What makes you think that the first life was produced on earth?

Evolution.

Or that man and woman were the first created beings?

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

Where do you think the first life was created?
What do you think were the first created beings?

 

[§outh§tar]

Jan is a she, hm?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan is a she, hm?

I AM A HE


For the last time.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Where do you think the first life was created?
What do you think were the first created beings?

Oh!
You want to talk now do you?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Evolution.

Please explain.

Jan.

 

[Anomalous]

Please explain.

Jan.

Or that man and woman were the first created beings?

Jan.

When did I say anything about Man or Woman being created ? The bible said it, so why ask me ?

 

[§outh§tar]

I AM A HE

Hey WatchOut Ophiolite, I know Jan very well, she is quite resonable.

But he knows you very well!