On 7/21/2010 6:10 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>> Why do creationists (with which I'm referring to certain specific dogmas
>>> rather than "christians" or "believers" in general) continuously confuse
>>> two completely different and separate fields of science, namely
>>> astronomy
>>> and biology?
>>
>> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that they
>> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>
> Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
> theological topics than believers do.
>
> It is certainly true that there are lots of people in both camps who
> believe and know only what their accepted authorities have told them
> about either topic.
>
The funny thing on that is, the average "believer" I know has maybe read 
20% of the Bible, almost **nothing** on the history tied to the time 
periods described in it (with possible exception of texts designed to 
ignore things that don't fit in with the "official" dogma), where as 
most atheists have read more than half of it, or the entire thing, more 
than once, and at least 1-2 books on the history of some of the periods, 
*and* more than a few books on other religions. The other thing is, like 
95% of atheists used to be believers, probably 20% of them where 
Evangelical, before concluding it was all gibberish, and another 2% or 
so where ***actually priests*** at one point in time.

By contrast, with the exception of a few that, when you examine their 
claims, are obviously lying, or didn't understand what they read in the 
first place, or where **already** looking for a different answer, so 
didn't *ever* accept the scientific evidence, there is maybe 1 biologist 
*ever* that has converted from atheist to some form of deism, that I 
know of, and he was medically ill, being pestered by "helpful" 
Evangelicals at the time, and suffering mid-stage dementia.

Hell yes, a lot of atheists have a better idea than the believers what 
their "theology" says...

>> A very typical argument between a (young-earth) creationist and an
>> evolutionist goes like: "Can you give me even one single example of
>> evolution having been observed?" "Yes, there's for example xyz."
>> "That's not evolution."
>>
>> Wait, now creationists define what "evolution" means and are, basically,
>> claiming that evolutionists don't even know what it really means?
>
> Differing definitions of evolution at work. In the broadest sense, it
> refers to any change over time in the variety of life, which is
> observable. Creationists use the term to refer to something more
> specific, such as the gradual change of one form of life into a
> significantly different form (such as the transition from insectivores
> into carnivores).
>
> Regards,
> John
Or, they completely jump the shark, and start babbling about dogs giving 
birth to cats, in one single generation. I.e., miracles being a 
necessity for evolution to work... lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message