Re: Pitman's Miller Time


"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1182969080.590488.261690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Jun 27, 5:25 am, "Lizzardwoman" <lizzardwomanRM...@xxxxxxxxx>
| wrote:
|
| > | I think it was fixed "for good" during the original creation of all
| > | the various basic kinds of living things and biosystems. After that,
| > | the no more deliberate tweeking was necessary. No higher-level
| > | evolution occured or needed to occur.
| >
| > But WHY do you believe that?
|
| Why not check out my website at www.DetectingDesign.com to find out? -
| or read through the many posts I've made on this topic in this forum
| and within this thread?

I did read through much of your stuff after trying to find something on
chalk deposits and the Green River Fm.

All you have there are various criticisms of present geological and
biological theory.

Are you saying you are a young-earth creationist based ENTIRELY on our
criticisms of present scientific theory? That there is no relation
whatsoever to your religion?

| > It's because you believe pre-scientific, counterfactual,
counter-evidentiary
| > claims. You have no good reason to believe those things other than your
| > (likely) childhood inculcation in religion.
|
| Quite a bald assertion - don't you think? Coming from someone who
| hasn't even really considered the reasons and evidences I've
| presented?

I read through some of your web site. I amazes me how you think you can
churn out piece after piece of material that counters the consensus opinion
of folks who have spent far longer than you studying this material. Are
they just too dumb? Are they lying? Why are you smarter about *their*
field of study than all those scientists,many of whom are Christians?

| > It is dishonest to start with a (faulty) conclusion and then try to make
the
| > evidence fit it.
|
| It isn't necessarily dishonest to do this.

It absolutely is when we are talking about claims (vice evidence) of the
supernatural from the Bronze Age and Iron Ages.

It may not be the brightest
| thing to do, but to accuse someone of dishonesty you have to
| understand their motive. Even though I may be blind in my
| understanding of the evidence, I can assure you of one thing, I'm
| being very honest here.

And what is your motive? To proselytize Christianity through flawed
science?

| > Your conclusion, that Bronze and Iron Age folks had some
| > unique supernatural knowledge, is facially ridiculous.
|
| Where did I say that anyone had unique supernatural knowledge?

We both know you would not be having your present difficulty with geology
and biology absent a young-earth cereationiust inculcation.

In your opinion, why are 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of young earth
creationsists such as yourself religious? Coincidence?

| > You are a victim.
|
| What else can you say? I also think the same thing about you . . .
| You have been unwittingly duped by your heavily biased educational
| background as well as your own personal bias.

I ask what the evidence says.

You ask how to knock down evidence that doesn't fit your theology. That is
dishonest.

My mind can be changed with evidence. Your mind will not allow any evidence
that counters your preconceived notion that your religious views *must* be
correct. Yes or no?

That's the difference between you and me. I care about intellectual honest.

sharon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proving God? - Impossible!
    ... potentially be proposed as counters. ... are considered at least somewhat viable counter hypotheses. ... producing desired code sequences within biosystems. ... isn't that evidence against god ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: On the topic of blind fish
    ... dense to notice anything that counters their worldview. ... the assertion with evidence. ... When evidence is viewed through a narrow mind, the truth of it may be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proving God? - Impossible!
    ... potentially be proposed as counters. ... are considered at least somewhat viable counter hypotheses. ... producing desired code sequences within biosystems. ... isn't that evidence against god ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proving God? - Impossible!
    ... potentially be proposed as counters. ... are considered at least somewhat viable counter hypotheses. ... producing desired code sequences within biosystems. ... isn't that evidence against god ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proving God? - Impossible!
    ... potentially be proposed as counters. ... are considered at least somewhat viable counter hypotheses. ... producing desired code sequences within biosystems. ... isn't that evidence against god ...
    (talk.origins)