Believing what you know ain't so

So I was kidding myself as well......

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch
Oh Peter you are such a kidder, evidence, yeah right

Thats why people like the one in this YT show have so many fanboys, he can talk like an evangelical preacher about a subject with no evidence but hearsay and assumption and gain ardent support.

Do you listen to yourself when you come up with this crap or are you just a B level troll like many around here believe?
Because if you're not a poor troll, you just admitted that evangelical preachers speak about subjects they know nothing about and base their spiels on hearsay and assumption to gain support. well done!

if this man had evidence he wouldnt be making his big song and dance like what he is doing would he???

I could say the same of you.

if the evidence was valid he would be selling burgers somewhere, this man is needed to sell evolution because so many still think its a religious belief

What exactly do Hamburgers have to do with the price of tea in China?

Really an hour long video to prove what he believes is science, really, its that valid a science that he is an evolution apologist and you think its a science

So you didn't actually watch it then...cool. you are indeed a font of authority.

If it was a valid science then what is this fella doing preaching it, oh thats right, as you said, validating creation by arguing against it, unlike Mr Dawkins who was so badly humiliated by Hovind he wont debate anymore

From where I'm looking It's far more likely Jesus was the son of the god of the Hebrews born into flesh than it is Hovind has embarrassed anyone other than himself. Please do some basic research before you just repeat some bull s# you heard from your buddies because Dawkins didn't stop debating publicly as you claim. He simply isn't going to be the gynecologist explaining child birth to stork adherents.

If this blokes rant wasnt neccesary to you and other believers then evolution would be valid, its not.

How exactly is this necessary to what I know, have learned and have taught? This is old hat and stuff I've been learning for nearly 30 years. Long before youtube, long before the internet was a usable thing for the average person and long before I had ever heard of this gentlemans

You are welcome to believe what you want, dont dictate what I can believe.

you ply me with the same tripe nearly every time I reply to a post of yours and it's stale and sad at this point. NOBODY is dictating anything to you. You are entirely welcome to remain in the bliss of your ignorance for the rest of your lovely god fearing life.

You are no better than the religious priests and wierdos you rant and rail about, no better than a member of wesboro baptist church

Why because I can look at both sides of the coin? I don't force you to come into these threads, I don't force you to read my replies, I don't do anything remotely in the vein of the religious weirdo's whom you think I rant about. The fact that you are so offended by me and my thoughts is in and of itself rather telling. If you were really so secure in your beliefs and faith you wouldn't feel so threatened by people like me. But you are.

Think about that

Theres nothing to think about except the fact that you are a textbook example of what is discussed in the video and how bad I feel for people like you who refuse to look for even a moment for fear of burning your poor little soul.The difference between you and I is that I can entertain the notion that I may not be right. That's not a thought that will ever creep into your noggin.

All that and I cant be bothered reading it because its the same old same old

The fact that I accept mine is a faith, you think yours is the truth is the difference

Preachers for evolution are no different to preachers for creation. Its all faith

originally posted by: borntowatch
No I wont be interested in confirmation bias until you acknowledge your own first

two faces in this thread

I absolutely do acknowledge it - it affects all of us. Recognising your own confirmation bias is the first step towards combating it.

There is opportunity here for great intellectual growth on your part if you will only do the same.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: borntowatch
No I wont be interested in confirmation bias until you acknowledge your own first

two faces in this thread

I absolutely do acknowledge it - it affects all of us. Recognising your own confirmation bias is the first step towards combating it.

There is opportunity here for great intellectual growth on your part if you will only do the same.

I have asked many times for empirical evidence and all I get is assumption and name calling

You going to change that pattern

Intellectual growth happens when your intellect is satisfied with knowledge. So far no evidence to sway my belief to your belief

originally posted by: borntowatch



All that and I cant be bothered reading it because its the same old same old

Same old same old is your speciality. Just like refusing to read anything that might have the ring of truth
To it because it's easier to hide in that warm fuzzy place called ignorance. You apparently are out to prove your confirmation bias with a vengeance!

The fact that I accept mine is a faith, you think yours is the truth is the difference

A good Christian stooping to outright lies to cover up the sad degree to which confirmation bias rules their world. In the thread titled "Proof that Jesus Existed" you state the following- There is abundant proof that Jesus existed, few, very few scholars deny Jesus existed.
The issue is, is Jesus who He says He is

The historical evidence speaks louder than a song sung



None of that statement sounds like you're taking it on faith alone so which is it? A
Fact based on Faith ?

You can't have both though.

Preachers for evolution are no different to preachers for creation. Its all faith

Aside from not begging strangers for money every Sunday? Oh there's the fact that despite your protestations there is copious evidence in favor of evolution. I fully admit that I'm biased towards facts. You on the other hand talk out both sides of your mouth simultaneously.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Intellectual growth happens when your intellect is satisfied with knowledge.

Sorry but that is just horse#. The first step to true knowledge is to recognise your own ignorance.

Or as Socrates put it, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

originally posted by: intrptr
Imo, I'll settle for eggs, seeds, DNA, cell division and the womb were carried here from somewhere else, the "third" category.

Religion and Evolution both leave that out.

One has them magically created out of thin air-- Poof!

And the other has them magically created in electric mud poodles-- Poof!

Wha? Which one of those statements applies to evolution? You have described creationism and creationism. There is no magic involved in genetic mutations leading to the variation of life we see today, nor is there magic involved in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis about how life could emerge from the basic organic components. I like ancient alien hypothesis as much as the next man, but there should be some kind of evidence of genetic tampering if that was the case. If those things you mentioned above are alien in nature, then why are we so similar to the rest of life on planet earth that has many of the same features and genetic code? I don't think an alien race would waste 3 billion years seeding planet earth from the beginning, so IF human DNA was manipulated, it was done using our recent ancestors and it was done to appear as natural evolution. It makes you wonder, but I think you have the wrong idea about evolution.

a reply to: borntowatch

Until you are willing to admit that you could be wrong, you will continue to wallow in your own ignorance.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Until you are willing to admit that you could be wrong, you will continue to wallow in your own ignorance.

I couldnt count the times on this site I have asked for evidence that could validate evolution, till then its just a religion

As a Christian I accept other Christians who believe in evolution. I have no idea what really happened prior to my birth never mind thousands of years ago.

Could I be wrong.....ABSOLUTELY, have I seen any evidence to suggest I am.....NONE

I am going to go with Gods creation up until the point where hard empirical science proves it wrong

So far science has squat to prove evolution other than evangelical preachers like the one in the opening post of this thread. He is just an evolutionists Kent Hovind, nothing more

confirmation bias is your problem, put your petty labels on me without a drop of evidence.

E V I D E N C E ends confirmation bias, E V I D E N C E

till then evolution its just a religion

a reply to: borntowatch

Ok. You admit that you could be wrong, that is a great beginning.

But it's only a beginning. You won't allow it to be anything more than that because you cannot see that your standards of accepting evidence are still blinded by your preconceptions and confirmation bias. Try to be just the least bit intellectually honest here, and you will see that you are actually wilfully ignoring evidence and not giving it a fair hearing. You are apply unfair standards that you would not extend to other areas of scientific endeavour. You do not judge germ theory or gravitational theory by the same harsh standards, only evolution.

"Search your feelings, Luke, you know it to be true"

To give you an example - the fossil record. There are a bunch of fossils documented, available to view for yourself at museums if you wish. They all appear in layers of rock laid down over countless Millenia, and the geological process for this is well understood. We do not see them in a random order, but rather in the exact order predicted by evolution. Can you offer an alternative explanation for them? Do you think they as a result of Noah's flood? If so how do you explain the fact they are not in a random sequence (as one would expect if there were a global flood) but rather layers of simple invertebrates below crustaceans below fishes below amphibians below reptiles below birds and mammals etc? Isn't the simplest explanation that these creatures appeared in an order consistent with evolutionary processes?

a reply to: Barcs

You have described creationism and creationism. There is no magic involved in genetic mutations leading to the variation of life we see today, nor is there magic involved in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis about how life could emerge from the basic organic components.

So its magic then. You said so yourself. You call it hypothesis but whatever, the origin of life is a mystery.

I don't have proof of what I said , either. I did say, imo.

Past my bedtime, so I won't return for at least 12 hours or so, but I fear that borntowatch will continue to stick his fingers in his ear holes and chant "la la la I can't hear you" ad infinitum. Hope I am wrong. Goodnight all.

BTW the claim above that evidence ends confirmation bias is wrong. Confirmation bias means you ignore evidence which does not fit with your preconceptions.

originally posted by: intrptr
So its magic then. You said so yourself. You call it hypothesis but whatever, the origin of life is a mystery.

No. If something is unknown or not fully understood, that doesn't make it magic. I never doubted that it was a mystery. I just dismissed magic as a cause, since magic doesn't exist as far as we know. It makes no sense to attribute anything we don't understand to magic or god. Thousands of years ago, many humans thought thunder and lightning was magic because they didn't understand it. They were wrong.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Grimpachi

I like his ending where he said "There are two groups of creationists the deceived and the deceivers there is no other category".

There are only one kind of theorists, too. Those that don't have any proof and those that… don't have any proof.

Imo, I'll settle for eggs, seeds, DNA, cell division and the womb were carried here from somewhere else, the "third" category.

Religion and Evolution both leave that out.

One has them magically created out of thin air-- Poof!

And the other has them magically created in electric mud poodles-- Poof!

Nothing you said here makes any sense and makes you look ridiculous for saying it. I sure hope you weren't being serious.

originally posted by: borntowatch

The fact that I accept mine is a faith, you think yours is the truth is the difference

Preachers for evolution are no different to preachers for creation. Its all faith

Did you watch the video? because its 41 mins, not an hour, the guy doesnt preach at all, he expresses an opinion based on the current evidence and stated "opinions change with the evidence."

A current understanding of reality and "truth" are two completely different things.
In the second video he is joined by an ex Christian, maybe you will be more interested in what he has to say, although I would doubt that, I doubt you have watched any of it. Maybe Im wrong. But I dunno, most "christians" havent even read the bible. I assume you are just here to argue a point, not examine evidence and expand horizons.

There is no greater tragedy than a prison inflicted upon oneself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution doesn't have proof of the origin of life any more than creationists. W can argue adaptation vs. evolving all day…

I said "proof of origin", please try to absorb that before addressing any response to me. Tired of clarifying myself to some that read what they want to into others statements.

ETA: Oh, and spellcheck left "poodles", I intended 'electric mud puddles'.

a reply to: Barcs

No. If something is unknown or not fully understood, that doesn't make it magic.

Yes it does.

a reply to: intrptr

Then all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand what evolutionary theory involves. It has nothing at all to do with origins so no... Evolution does not, nor does it attempt to, explain the origins of anything. It describes changed in allele frequency and genes. All evolution does is exam changes over time. Not how things begin. Evolution= biological process. Abiogenesis = chemical processes. Two different areas of study.

a reply to: intrptr

No, it means you don't understand it or don't know. It doesn't make it magic.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I doubt anyone here arguing against evolution watched the video or attempted to.

They have just assumed it is about evolution in some way, but the joke is, it is about them and how they act towards information, denying things without even looking at them and doing mental gymnastics to protect their beliefs.

They are unwittingly demonstrating with their posts exactly what the video said they would do.


Both have tried to label evolution as a faith or religion exactly as ARonRa said they would do and as he said they do it because they know faith and religion is not a logical way to go through life. Their responses are almost cliche.