Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

In fairness, I have found your posts to be largely considered and thoughtful.
I can see how somebody can be an Atheist ... and I have a good few people that I'm proud to number among my friends who are.

How would you describe your faith-position now?

Well, thanks :pac:

I got the impression from your post that you think anyone who really thinks it over will come to the conclusion that you have, maybe I picked that up wrong though.

Honestly, I don't know how I'd describe it. Agnostic atheist I suppose if I had to give an answer. It's really not something that crosses my mind much these days, except when these threads come up at least. There are some days when I want to believe there's something out there watching over us; it's a comforting thought in some ways. I just can't reconcile that thought with reality anymore, and reading of the bible in my younger days describes it's God as far from the kind and loving one I was brought up being told about.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... they remind me of myself, when I was a young evolutionist ... brash, opinionated ... and largely relying on others for their opinions:)

... beneath all that bluster lies a person seeking God in their lives ... but too proud to admit it ... I know ... 'I too was that soldier'!!!;)

You are hilarious. Not in a good way, though. You think the posters here and in the A&A are just angry teenagers going through an atheistic phase.

Doctor Jimbob

Pherekydes wrote: »

You are hilarious. Not in a good way, though. You think the posters here and in the A&A are just angry teenagers going through an atheistic phase.

That's the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. It genuinely doesn't seem to have crossed his mind that an adult could have thought this all over thoroughly and come to a different conclusion than he did. I don't understand it.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

also J C did not like your slur about the deep south-felt very insulted and hope one of the major Gods(THOR maybe) will give you what you deserve in Vahalla:p

I'm not from Cork ... so I wasn't insulted ... and I only wish good things for everybody.:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well, thanks :pac:

I got the impression from your post that you think anyone who really thinks it over will come to the conclusion that you have, maybe I picked that up wrong though.

Honestly, I don't know how I'd describe it. Agnostic atheist I suppose if I had to give an answer. It's really not something that crosses my mind much these days, except when these threads come up at least. There are some days when I want to believe there's something out there watching over us; it's a comforting thought in some ways. I just can't reconcile that thought with reality anymore, and reading of the bible in my younger days describes it's God as far from the kind and loving one I was brought up being told about.

Thanks for that.
Many people are 'on your page' ... and I can see how you are where you are.

nozzferrahhtoo

catallus wrote: »

This whole thread hasn't exactly been a haven of good manners now, has it?

Such as you ignoring my last post, for example? Manners really are subjective I guess.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I am not a scientist nor devoting my life to researching the topic, so cannot give any estimate.
I just have to go with a best guess of who I believe.

So rather than follow the facts that are the most compelling, you follow the person who is the most convincing. That is an unusual approach that I certainly could never share. For me, the more convincing a person seems to be, the more I feel I need to check their claims thoroughly.

kingchess

ME too-wish the best for everyone and hope you will walk on the right path,that your eyes may open-anyway may Thor bless you and hold you in the palm of his hand

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

You are hilarious. Not in a good way, though. You think the posters here and in the A&A are just angry teenagers going through an atheistic phase.

... some seem to be ... others are more considered in their views.:)

Pherekydes

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I am not a scientist nor devoting my life to researching the topic, so cannot give any estimate.
I just have to go with a best guess of who I believe.

Well, who do you believe and why?

Here's an analogy:

Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?

J C

kingchess wrote: »

ME too-wish the best for everyone and hope you will walk on the right path,that your eyes may open-anyway may Thor bless you and hold you in the palm of his hand

I'm holding 'Thor' in the palm of my hand ... apart from that ... I'd like to thank you for your good wishes ... and wish you many happy returns.;)

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, who do you believe and why?

Here's an analogy:

Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?

I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ... for that you need aeronautical engineers, bio-chemists and bio-medical technologists.:)
... and whether they think that 'God did it' ... or 'it did itself' ... doesn't really matter when it comes to designing aircraft, developing medical tests or surgical instruments.:)

kingchess

J C wrote: »

I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)

kingchess wrote: »

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???

SaveOurLyric

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, who do you believe and why?

Here's an analogy:

Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?

I would be tending towards the 4.5 billion years theory at this stage.

catallus

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

5uspect

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ... for that you need aeronautical engineers, bio-chemists and bio-medical technologists.:)
... and whether they think that 'God did it' ... or 'it did itself' ... doesn't really matter when it comes to designing aircraft, developing medical tests or surgical instruments.:)

Never heard of genetic algorithms then?

I'm still waiting for you to show me a paper from a peer reviewed journal where you point out all the mistakes, or are you happy to accept their contents?

Also what is your scientific background? I take your silence as admission that you are not a biologist.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ...

So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?

endacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?

Bet he ignores that...

J C

kingchess wrote: »

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???

Facts are facts ... how they are interpreted can depend on ones worldview.

Pherekydes

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

You don't have to quit reading poetry or speculating when you open your eyes to reality, you know.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

kingchess wrote: »

Facts are facts ... how they are interpreted can depend on ones worldview.

Look at it this way. People from various religions have accepted evidence supports evolutionary theory. Only those who believe in the Abrahamic religious have found that the evidence supports creationism. Does this not strike you as odd?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Look at it this way. People from various religions have accepted evidence supports evolutionary theory. Only those who believe in the Abrahamic religious have found that the evidence supports creationism. Does this not strike you as odd?

... it's not odd ... and some people of other faiths and none have grave doubts about 'molecules to man' evolution ... and that's not odd either.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... it's not odd ... and some people of other faiths and none have grave doubts about 'molecules to man' evolution ... and that's not odd either.

Isn't it? If the creationist hypothesis is indeed the one which evidence supports, surely at least one scientist from outside these religions would agree with it. But this has yet to happen.

J C

endacl wrote: »

Bet he ignores that...

Answer here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599813&postcount=1133

endacl

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they ignore their geological training for the most part, choosing to interpret some aspects of the geological evidence while ignoring other, less convenient aspects ... based on their erroneous belief that the Earth is very young indeed.

Good thing there's not very many of them about!

endacl

J C wrote: »

Answer here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599813&postcount=1133

^^

Ya. Got that.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Isn't it? If the creationist hypothesis is indeed the one which evidence supports, surely at least one scientist from outside these religions would agree with it. But this has yet to happen.

Religious (and irreligious) worldviews are very powerful ... and this applies to people of all faiths and none.

Doctor Jimbob

endacl wrote: »

Good thing there's not very many of them about!

I've found one, and he doesn't appear to have had anything published in a mainstream journal since the 90s.

Frank Bullitt

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

Speculation? You are going by the writings of a primitive book from a backwards part of the world, and you say Atheists don't speculate? Hahahahahaha

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Religious (and irreligious) worldviews are very powerful ... and this applies to people of all faiths and none.

I think you're missing my point, intentionally or not. One theory has been independently verified by scientists of all major religions. The other has only been accepted by one group of religions. If the evidence truly supports it, why has no scientist from outside this group supported it, ever?