BASICS-Over the next few months, my plans are to slowly introduce a few concepts that Bible literalists will undoubtedly have a major problem with, but my purpose is to bring these subjects into light for proper discussion and presentation. It will most certainly arouse apologetics of the Genesis account, and ultimately, it will propose a different way of looking at our biological lives. In my experiences from Oklahoma, I believe that far too many people are shielded, just as I was, from an alternative to Bible fundamentalism, and this alternative happens to be an innovation that science has successfully proved to be an incontrovertible fact over the past 100 years. A true and magnificent milestone achievement. Something that is amazingly mind-blowing when properly understood. A set of principles that truly "revolutionizes" one's thinking about the world. What I'm speaking of is Darwinian evolution. It's undoubtedly a very deep, difficult topic to fully understand, but the importance of it is undeniable. It truly deserves as much time as it does respect. Charles Darwin's idea is possibly the greatest innovation to modern thinking that human beings have ever seen because it flew in the face of virtually all of society, it was BOLD, and most importantly, it gave us an entire new outlook on the history of life. The resistance to it persists in the world today because it dispels stories of a talking snake, a man living in a fish for three days, a virgin birth, and ultimately and most importantly, a RESURRECTION. The most intriguing aspect of evolution is that it tells us WHO WE REALLY ARE. Never before has an idea challenged the masses to the magnitude that Darwin's treatise On the Origin of Species did, and again, I hope to soften the blow that it may render to the delicate religious mind that has never withstood such devastating opposition as this. Because after all, my purpose is to guide and discover new, alternative ways of thinking.
It took months of heated, internal resistance for me to even begin to START giving this alternative a FAIR CHANCE, but honestly, upon finding the evidence throughout the rigorous research and hours of study, things have changed for me. (An obvious understatement.) If I've ever experienced anything even close to a "miracle" in my life, then it was the day that Darwin's evolution by natural selection's "lightbulb" came on in my mind. (May my families' grave-rollers proceed with their 180 degree turn. :)
With that being said, I will proceed to today's topic: Noah's Ark. Again, hopefully this will not be the most difficult thing to digest for people who have actually took an interest in science within the past few years, but I suspect some believers will be very offended by it. All I ask from you, the reader, is to think about this with an open mind, simply a possibility. That's a WONDERFUL place to start. I also ask you to consider the scientists that toil in obscurity while devoting many years of intellectual exhaustion and physical sweat to research in acquiring this new evidence and knowledge. After all, if it weren't for these people, we would still have an average life span of 30 years, and I would probably be in a wheel chair right now. (Another story for another time. :)
I would like to start this series off with a page from Richard Dawkin's latest book The Greatest Show on Earth. It is a book that provides us with the evidence for evolution, and I thought I would post this one particular thought about the validity of the "Noah's Ark" story.
"It is almost too ridiculous to mention it, but I'm afraid I have to because of the more than 40 percent of the American population who accept the Bible literally: think what the geographical distribution of animals should look like if they'd all dispersed from Noah's Ark. Shouldn't there be some law of decreasing species diversity as we move away from an epicenter - perhaps Mount Ararat? I don't need to tell you that that is not what we see.
Why would all those marsupials-ranging from tiny pouched mice through koalas and bilbys to giant kangaroos and Diprotodonts-why would all those marsupials, but no eutherians at all, have migrated en masse from Mount Ararat to Australia? Which route did they take? And why did not a single member of their straggling caravan pause on the way, and settle-in India, perhaps, or China, or some haven along the Great Silk Road?
....How on Earth do the 40 percent of history-deniers think this state of affairs came about?...Once again, I AM SORRY TO TAKE A SLEDGEHAMMER TO SO SMALL A NUT, but I have to do so because more than 40 percent of the American people believe literally in the story of Noah's Ark. We should be able to ignore them, and get on with our science, but we can't afford to because they control school boards, they home-school their children to deprive them of access to proper science teachers, and they include many members of the United States Congress, and some state governors...." (Dawkins 268-270)
And what about the penguins making their merry little marches (swims) toward the arctic? Does Noah's Ark make any plausible sense of this at all? Let's shed our preconceptions, and think about this for a moment......if evidence really did, in fact, support Noah's Ark and "the Great Flood" then why would science dispute it?
A)Either science is right, and the Genesis account is a myth.
or B)Satan planted the evidence to "trick" us into denying Noah's Ark.
And finally, I leave you with this question.....what do you think is more likely to have happened?
Also, here is an interesting article (see bottom) from National Geographic that explains the myth of "the Great Flood."
Source: Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press, 2010. 268-270. Print.
Further research: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090206-smaller-noah-flood.html
20 comments:
Part 1 of 4
You are correct in one thing - as someone who accepts the truth, I do have a “problem” (that is, I disagree) with the evolutionary myths you present. And I hate to burst your bubble, but Dawkins is a raving lunatic who would like to see Christians put in Jail for teaching their children about God which is a right that the founders of our country died to protect. I do not doubt your sincerity or truthfulness of your personal experience, but I find it odd that you’d believe that many people are shielded from alternatives to Bible “fundamentalism”. I would conjecture that it is just the opposite. Our public schools are outright hostile to Christianity and every child, regardless of where they go to school, is indoctrinated with evolutionary myths. Many, by God’s grace, are simply able to see past the flimsy arguments and able to hold to the truth.
In addition, your dogmatic beliefs in evolution and supposed “science” are unfounded. Your claim that “science” has proven alternatives to Bible fundamentalism as “incontrovertible fact” demonstrates a misconception of what science is. Science can ONLY prove what it can repeatedly observe and test according to the scientific method. Ancient events (some billions of years old according to evolutionists) have never been observed and can never be repeated or measured and can therefore NEVER be proven. Evidence left as a result of ancient events can only be interpreted according to preconceived assumptions. Evolution starts with a mythical story invented by the fallible imaginations of men, to which evidence is cherry picked and applied indiscriminately while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
Part 2 of 4
While I appreciate the humor regarding your ancestors rolling over in their graves, if you don’t mind some unsubstantiated psychoanalysis, it appears from your demeanor that you have been highly criticized for your stance (perhaps by family members) and you are now overcompensating by embracing a belief that is even more “religious” than the one you have abandoned. I do not doubt your word that you have done a lot of “rigorous research and hours of study”, but so have I (and I would guess for many more years). How is it then that we have formed diametrically opposed beliefs? Is it really a matter of hard facts and evidence? Do you think I would be able to change your mind by providing scientific evidence (which we do have)?
Before I get to that, I want to point out another instance of your confusion regarding operational science (subject to the scientific method) and historical science. You talk about the “many years of intellectual exhaustion and physical sweat” applied to acquiring new evidence and knowledge in regard to increasing our life spans. Actually, our life spans were much longer in the distant past, but that’s another topic. The problem here is that the majority of those scientists are Christians, many of which believe in a literal Genesis. The work they’ve done to extend life spans or provide medical “miracles” have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary myths. You are discussing advances in operational science, not historical studies to which evolution belongs and which is not required by those operational scientific endeavors, most of which were founded by Bible “literalists”.
Part 3 of 4
So what about this supposed evidence from Dawkins? All Dawkins does is present straw man after straw man. He is obviously uninterested in presenting the accurate position of those he attempts to mock, something a true unbiased scientist would not do. Why in the world would we expect to see a “law of decreasing species diversity” as we move away from an epicenter? Early settlers of Australia released a small number of rabbits in one location and now the entire continent is overridden by them with not a slightest trace of a “law of decreasing species diversity”.
There is absolutely nothing at all regarding geographic distribution that is incompatible with the concept of Noah’s ark. As has been demonstrated by “living fossils” such as the coelacanth, just because a species is not found in the fossil record does not mean it was living at the time. Marsupials could very well have left populations in India or China and have become extinct. There is ample historical evidence that lions once lived in the Middle East, but we have found no fossils of them there. If evolutionists can propose that wolves drifted across 500 km of sea to the Falkland Islands, why couldn’t marsupials have crossed an even smaller water barrier to get to Australia? It’s even more likely that humans (descendants from the ark) carried them there.
On the contrary, geographic distribution of marsupials is a PROBLEM for evolutionists! Evolutionists concede that marsupials once lived EXLUSIVELY in Europe, Asia and North America (from the fossil evidence) but are now largely absent there and restricted today to Australia and South America. Evolutionists admit that this geographical switch remains unexplained. However, it is easily explained with the flood model.
Part 4 of 4
Your closing remarks again display your confusion regarding “science”. It is NOT a choice between science and the Genesis “myth”. Science fully supports Genesis. Rather the choice is between evolutionism (the religious belief in evolution) and accurate eye-witness accounts of our history provided by God Himself. God has not attempted to trick us since He has plainly told us what happened. However, Satan has done everything possible to trick us into denying God’s truth and convincing rebellious souls into deceptive beliefs.
There are many studies which demonstrate the probability of evolution to be essentially ZERO. So to answer your question, the likely hood of God’s Word being true is more than magnitudes greater than the fallible imaginations of men unsubstantiated by repeatable observations.
Some of my comments are paraphrased from “The Greatest Hoax On Earth: Refuting Dawkins On Evolution” by Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Book Publishers, 2010 (see creation.com for additional information).
"Dawkins is a raving lunatic." That's your opinion. I like to refrain from calling anyone "raving lunatics," because this proves nothing and contributes nothing to the argument except your obvious contempt for evolutionists.
Second, my family has been very supportive of my switch from Christianity. I have explained my reasons, and they respect them. I simply put the "grave-rolling" comment in for humor. I was being a bit sarcastic as well.
Third up, yes, it is virtually impossible to prove ANYTHING, but evolution is a working, testable phenomena that science is OBSERVING not only in the lab, but in the field as well. No, we can't see two billion years of change in a few years. If that's what you need to prove Darwinian evolution to you, I'm sorry.
Also, I think you may need to take a trip to southern Oklahoma, and then come talk to me about what you think is being taught. The truth is, even the word "evolution" is highly frowned upon, and you would be under Satan's power if you believed in it. Hey, come to think of it, you would probably love it here in Oklahoma.
Last up, a couple of questions for ya:
1. Do you really believe dinosaurs lived here on earth within the last 6,000 years?
2. How do you explain the giraffe's laryngeal nerve? Hard to imagine a "designer" designed that.
Almost forgot, your psychoanalysis attempts do little other than display attitude and arrogance so just a heads up about that; it's not helping your case. Basically saying I have psychological issues proves nothing. An attack on my character actually shows an "overcompensating" on your part which doesn't surprise me because you also keep calling my stance on evolution a "religion." And even if it was (which it absolutely is NOT) a religion, why would I be so bad? After all, YOU subscribe to religion to answer your questions about life. The difference is that atheists aren't saying, "believe in my God or burn in Hell forever." Your God tells you that you have free will, and you're able to choose, but then says you'll be tormented forever if you don't choose Him. If that doesn't sound like a man-made crock of sh$t, then I don't know what does.
Part 1 of 3
You have misinterpreted most of my comments. I stand by my opinion of Dawkins (my right). This in no way demonstrates my contempt for evolutionists, only my contempt for Dawkins. The vile and hateful comments that have proceeded out of that man’s mouth are inexcusable for any human, particularly one in the public spotlight, although it does not surprise me. He is living according to his beliefs. We are just evolved animals with no basis for moral behavior.
Forgive my skepticism, but you will have to prove to me that the teaching of evolution in public schools in the South is “frowned upon”. Are they teaching even one sentence of creation theory (an alternative to evolution)? In every case where parents have asked for the simple scientific tradition of teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of a theory (such as evolution) to their own children, in their own schools, paid for by their own tax dollars, they have been dragged to court, placed under injunction and threatened with financial ruin of their school districts! Do you have a text book that is used in the South that teaches creation theory or even the weaknesses of evolutionary theory? Back up your opinion with some facts. I have plenty.
Part 2 of 3
I did understand your grave rolling comment as humor (and said so). My comments regarding your family were meant sympathetically. I’m happy your entire family has been supportive of your beliefs. I have not been so lucky. My psychoanalysis was not meant to be arrogant nor an attack on your character nor an implication that you have psychological issues (that’s why I prefixed it with “unsubstantiated” and besides we ALL have psychological issues). However, your contempt for “religion” (as opposed to your false accusation that I have contempt for atheists) is clearly indicated in your offense to my statement that evolution is a religion (which it absolutely is). You apparently take offense to anything religious. I subscribe to no religion. I subscribe to the truth. Where have you been? Atheists DO say “believe in my God or burn in Hell forever”. Except their God is naturalism (mother earth), and their Hell is prison or financial ruin. I provided an example of that above. Where is our free will there? Atheists delight in removing any choices for people besides their socialist state dictated ones.
Part 3 of 3
It is possible to “prove” many things based on consistent, repeatable observation and testing. Evolution is not one of them. Evolution has NEVER been observed. On the other hand, change within the created kinds HAS been observed, tested and validated as FACT. This supports creation theory, NOT evolution.
Oh yes, your questions. I don’t “believe” dinosaurs lived on earth thousands of years ago, it has been scientifically demonstrated. Scientists regularly discover dinosaur and other fossils with soft tissue and blood still intact. There is no known mechanism that preserves organic material for millions of years. Yes, that is strong evidence among many others that dinosaurs were around thousands of years ago. Why is it hard to imagine that a “designer” created the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve? You are suffering from “evolution of the gaps”. When you don’t understand the purpose or function of something, you simply relegate it to a product of evolution. A typical car has an engine in the front and the exhaust system takes a long and tortuous path underneath the car making it more vulnerable to injury. Does that mean it wasn’t designed that way? On the other hand, while Dawkins is only considering the main destination, the laryngeal nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes and the esophagus. So a circuitous route is not necessarily an indication of bad design. Try again. Look, I don’t have an answer for everything, but I have enough of them to convince me of the truth.
In Oklahoma, teachers simply skip over the sections about evolution. I've witnessed this myself.
Anyways, we will just have to agree to disagree and move on. Your assessment of atheism is so ridiculous that it's sad. If the only reason people are not going around killing and stealing is because they think God is on surveillance, then what does that say about them? I choose to live morally without worrying about "Big Brother" taking notes and judging me. You insinuate that a human cannot be moral without God.
Regarding my views upon evolution: I think that it explains so much about life on Earth. No, science isn't selling anything. No eternal life, no incentive, no commandments, and most importantly, it's not telling us that we will be punished for not agreeing with it. On the other hand, Christianity is selling something (eternal life), but your God also says if I don't choose Him, I will be tortured forever. If God, in fact, does exist, I just say that "He can kiss my ass!" Any God that says, "choose me or burn" isn't worth worshipping!
As far as facts, I'm not gonna set here and waste hours and hours of my life discussing scientific evidence with you because if you really believe dinosaurs lived on this planet within the last 6,000 years, then nothing I could say would ever matter.
To finish up, I'd just like to say this. I could be wrong, but so could you. If a Creator does exist, maybe you picked the wrong one? If you are correct though, maybe your wonderful, all-loving Jesus will have a tad bit of mercy on the beings He chose to bring into existence. If not, then I guess you and God will sadistically enjoy watching us heretics burn. Maybe that will keep you occupied for eternity?
Part 1 of 3
Ragzy,
Are you listening to yourself speak (write)? I’m apparently hitting some sore spot, as you are reacting very irrationally and hypocritically. You suggest my assessment of atheism is “so ridiculous its sad” and then you turn around and tempt and mock God, calling him sadistic and stating “he can kiss my ass”! You claim your beliefs are based on evidence and yet you refuse to “waste” your time discussing evidence! That tells me you really don’t have any.
Let me make this clear. I NEVER stated that an atheist cannot be moral. I said that they have no basis for morality. If they practiced what they preach, they would certainly be immoral. Thank God most don’t, instead, they BORROW Christian principles in order to be moral. You are choosing to be moral based on Christian principles, ironically something you show extreme contempt for. In that sense, you cannot be moral without God. Without God having established our moral laws, our civilization would be acting no differently than animals (and many do). You don’t worry about God judging you, but you accept society judging you, your Boss judging you, your teacher judging you, your wife judging you, your children judging you (and believe me, they will).
Part 2 of 3
You are again confusing science with the religious belief in evolution. Science isn’t selling anything, but atheists are. They are selling a materialistic religious belief that dictates that there is no eternal life, no incentive, no commandments and punishment by fine or imprisonment if you don’t believe in what they preach. What kind of behavior do you think “no incentives” and “no commandments” produce? Would you be working at your job, if you didn’t have the incentive of a paycheck? Do you think that crime would not increase if we removed our laws requiring punishment for burglaries? Those laws are based on Christian principles, not atheist ones. Atheist nations have been the most sadistic, cruel nations in the history of mankind. So what if people don’t go around killing and stealing because they think God is on surveillance? The Bible states that the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord. What if one of those people killed a member of your family because they no longer cared about God watching? Would you feel the same then? Who cares why they are moral as long as they are, and don’t go around killing or stealing?
Part 3 of 3
You seem to be hung up on this false and twisted idea of yours that God tells us to “choose me or burn”. That is what is “so ridiculous, it’s sad” and is a byproduct of your evolutionary beliefs. We, beginning with Adam (if you believed he existed), are the ones that have rebelled against God and sinned. We therefore deserve the punishment for those sins. God in all his LOVE and MERCY has provided a way out. He suffered a horrible and painful death on the cross so that we could live. But instead you tell Him to kiss your ass!
To finish up, I’d just like to say that I’m not wrong and you are; and I’m not being arrogant by saying so. I didn’t pick God, He picked me. He created me. He’s shown me the truth in His Words, in His Power, in His Creation and in His Love and I can do nothing less than proclaim it. Everything we know about life screams of His existence, but you have willfully chosen to close your eyes to the truth. Whether you’d want me to or not, I will pray that God will not hold your mocking of Him against you. Neither God, nor I, would ever enjoy seeing you or anyone in your family suffer and it is shameful of you to suggest we would. God bless, and may He reveal Himself at a time in which you are willing to listen so that you do not suffer loss.
By the way, whatever happened to our “friendship”? Perhaps you should re-read some emails we exchanged? I will be the first to beg your forgiveness if I’ve offended. It truly was never my intent. I am just calling it as I see it. As I’ve indicated several times in my responses, I think you are misinterpreting both my words and intent.(feel free to delete this message).
I'm being nonchalant with you because our conversations have went nowhere. This is my blog, my experience, my interpretations of human origins, and my thoughts about truth. I'm not saying that you HAVE TO AGREE! However, what this blog is NOT is this: it's not a place for people that "know they are right." This is a site to question things like "God" and other controls that some of us have been forced to adhere to. This is a site to promote FREEDOM. I believe that every person is free to believe WHATEVER THEY WANT! Unlike you, I believe there are options for happiness other than believing in Jesus. Unlike you, I believe that your way (Jesus) isn't "the only way," and I believe it is of the utmost arrogance for you to say that it is.
I understand the fact that you are having difficulty accepting that I believe in evolution, but I really don't know what to tell you. You say science has NO evidence for Darwinian evolution, and all that I can do is shake my head. I really don't have the time, nor the mental fortitude, to try to battle with you about it because if you have truthfully studied science and still reject this, then there is nothing I could ever say to change that. If science is wrong, and you are right, then why don't you publish something and refute the evidence for evolution? Creationist's attempts have been futile at disproving evolution, and I think you're aware of that. IF YOU REALLY HAD EVIDENCE, SCIENCE WOULD ABANDON EVOLUTION IN A HEARTBEAT AND ACCEPT YOUR VIEW OF YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM.
If you actually believe that dinosaurs co-existed with humans a few thousand years ago, then why would I spend any time trying to convince you of any of the other intricacies of evolution? I don't see the point in arguing with you about it. It's circular.
I know you think I'm deceived and science is wrong about this subject, but if your God is real, then credit Him for creating evidence that deceives us. If God truly exists, then He is responsible for building this world in such a fashion that it could easily lead us astray. His "word" has utterly confused the world and led to thousands of misinterpretations, yet you call it "infallible." I'm sorry that everyone hasn't been enlightened by God like you have, but again, I don't know what you expect me to do.
And finally, I don't need Christianity to base my morality on, and obviously I don't care to tell God to "kiss my ass" when I don't even believe He exists. Your "evidence" hasn't changed my mind in the slightest way. I'm fully aware of both your views and mine, and I think you've explained your stance in great detail. However, it hasn't come without gut-wrenching reflection over the past year that I have chose to accept Darwinian evolution as actuality.
Yes, humans are animals. What's so bad about this fact? I know that your belief says that humans are special and different from other life on Earth, but I've seen many other species that behave much more respectably than some humans do. Thank you for your time Raisemeup, but I think, for all intents and purposes, WE ARE FINISHED. :)
Part 1 of 2
Where do you expect our conversation to go? You just want to hear from people that agree with you? Yes, it’s your blog but it’s in the public domain for everyone to see including people that disagree with you. If you just want atheists to hear what you have to say, I suggest you allow access by invite only and then you can wallow in self gratiation. However, remember, this started by you looking for more participation from people on YA.
I also believe that every person is free to believe WHATEVER THEY WANT. However, that doesn’t mean everyone is right! It is the freedom to disagree and debate which makes this country great, not the belief itself. If this site is supposed to be about FREEDOM, then why are you intolerant of what I believe? It appears your tolerance does not go beyond your fellow atheists and those who you think you can convince of what you believe! So why should I be the one that needs to be convinced? You are simply frustrated because I have an answer for whatever issue you raise. Have you considered that perhaps you are the one that needs convincing?
I have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the fact that you believe in evolution. Lots of people do. Science is not wrong. Science fully supports creation theory. It is evolutionists that are wrong in their interpretation of the evidence because of their atheist religious beliefs. I am in the process of writing a book, so yes, I hope someday to have something published. The work of thousands of creation scientists around the world has not been futile. The majority of people in this country do NOT believe in evolution; I think you are aware of that. Evidence is NOT what causes people to believe in evolution. There are mountains of evidence supporting creation theory. Leading evolutionists accept evolution because they are ATHEISTS and any alternatives besides natural causes are unacceptable to them.
Part 2 of 2
If you don’t wish to hear arguments for other points of view than that simply demonstrates a closed mind. You have stated repeatedly in this response that the purpose of your blog is to convince other people of what you believe. Apparently, since it doesn’t appear you can convince me, you want to give up. Yet, you categorically state that my evidence hasn’t changed your mind “in the slightest way”. So apparently only you have the freedom to change people’s minds on your blog. What’s wrong with relegating people to just animals? We kill animals for food and fertilizer.
We have hardly touched upon specific evidence. You have raised various issues and I have demonstrated that there are alternative ways of interpreting them. If you really had an open mind as you seem to be saying (I’m not quite sure), then select a specific and focused piece of evidence you think supports evolution and let’s get into the nitty-gritty. If one piece of evidence proves to be wrong (either way), then perhaps the rest could be held in question as well. If you don’t want to do this or do not want to hear from me again, I will be glad to remove myself from your blog.
Raisemeup, my good pal Raisemeup. What are we doing here? Oh, that's right, I remember now... You were telling me that science fully supports creation theory, and that most of the people in this country do NOT believe in evolution, which, by the way, proves what?
Anyway, we have "hardly touched upon the scientific evidence" because I think it's pointless for me to explain thousands of peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted articles backed by evidence just to have you tell me that dinosaurs co-existed with humans 4,000 years ago which is about the most ridiculous thing anyone could ever believe considering the information that is available today. The TRUTH is this: Young-Earth creationists are a joke to the scientific community. You're being laughed at in the scientific community today because you insist upon substituting your bronze-aged stories for scientific evidence. So no, I cannot be open-minded toward your "stories," just like I cannot be open-minded toward Scientology, Mormonism, or the Amish Mennonites that are among the most outrageously moronic people that exist on Earth.
Anyone can believe whatever they want, and they are free to do that, but don't come proclaiming your "miracles" as scientific fact. I don't have any problem in hearing any theory from ANYONE WHATSOEVER, but I cannot guarantee that I will just drop everything and tell you that you are right!
And finally, if your book gets published and your truth conquers science and replaces our "myth" of evolution, then I will be the first in line to say that YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG. Until then, you keep believing in your immaculate conception, keep on "red herring" my character, and in the meantime, I'll stick to Darwin.
I believe I have stated in an earlier reply that if you've actually studied science and you still deny evolution, then there's nothing I could ever say to change your mind about it so why would I bother rehashing it??? Professional scientists are much more qualified to present the current knowledge that science possesses regarding evolution so if you don't agree with them, then why would you agree with me???
I don't know what is so complicated about this that you cannot comprehend? I don't understand why you can't get over the fact that a person (me) has exercised their free will to accept evolution and deny the Bible's Genesis account?
Also, this is MY blog. I can say whatever I want, however I want. Start your own blog if you want to present your case in-depth. In the meantime, feel free to read my posts, reply to them, and interact with anyone you like, but please spare us of the psychological critiques and the constant insinuation of "YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE."
I am not required to prove anything at all to you, and I am not required to explain things "to your liking." I simply choose to communicate my thoughts and ideas on the subject (that is based on scientific facts) and THAT'S IT. And moving forward, don't expect me to devote any more time to the personality analyses that you so frequently like to offer up.
Ragzy,
First, I DO agree with professional scientists as they are indeed very qualified to present current knowledge regarding evolution. And what are these professional scientists saying? They are telling me that evidence regarding evolution is essentially non-existent and the case for creation theory is much more reasonable and backed by actual empirical data. So if you don’t agree with these scientists, what are the chances you will agree with me? Does that mean it shouldn’t be discussed? Perhaps you are not aware of everything these professional scientists are saying? Perhaps you have only researched information that supports your own worldview and ignored other scientists who disagree? Because a situation seems hopeless, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Or, perhaps you are simply afraid to hear the truth. Perhaps you should think for yourself instead of blindly believing what all these supposed scientists are telling you?
Second, I do not know where you get the impression that I have a problem with your belief in evolution or that I have a problem with you saying whatever you want to on your blog. Clearly, you have a perfect right to belief what you want and to say what you want. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with you. Pointing out that your comments are hypocritical is NOT a personality analysis; it is an observation of fact. For example, you object to my supposed “personality analysis” and yet you turn around and suggest that I display “attitude and arrogance”, that I am “overcompensating”, that I would “sadistically enjoy” watching you burn in hell, that I have “difficultly accepting” that you believe in evolution, that my beliefs are the “most ridiculous thing anyone could ever believe”, that my assessment of atheism is “so ridiculous that it’s sad”, that I am a “joke”, and that I substitute “bronze-aged stories for scientific evidence”, none of which is true. So apparently, only you are allowed to do a personality analysis on your blog? I’m in no way attempting to do a personality analysis. All I’m doing is pointing out the error in your logic.
Your blog is much more than your “experience”, “interpretations of human origins” and “thoughts about the truth” when you proceed to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you. If the purpose of your blog is to convince other people of what you believe (as you’ve repeatedly suggested), then how do you suppose to do that without providing proof or explanations? A rational conclusion (and not a personality analysis) is that you want to live in your happy little blog world where everyone agrees with you and run from any serious challenge. That’s fine, all power to you. If that’s what you want, I’ll be happy to step aside and allow you to bask in the light of God’s, oops…Mother Nature’s creation.
Post a Comment