And the above was followed by more long paragraphs and at least one more post! What the heck!? I don’t think the word “ignore” means what you think it means!
In all fairness to @DesperateEC , he announced up front that he wasn’t here to pick a fight about I.d. He told us it was just his opinion, and he’s entitled to have all of those he wants. I haven’t read through everything above, so I apologize if the discussion evolved naturally enough that way.
And DEC, you need to keep in mind that this is a science web site too, with scientific minded individuals who are going to routinely be interested in evidence. So part of coping in life is to at least begin to think through some of those sorts of things that we believers may at least initially wish to cordon off as ‘sacred’. And if somebody is not yet ready for something to be brought out into empirical lights for examination, that’s fine too. I happen to agree with you that empiricism is not the only authentic judge presiding in the court of life. Others here may give empiricism highest, or even unique status in that regard, and they bring good and welcome challenges to the table here too. So i hope you can stick it out here and learn to cope in an environment that will still challenge you and refuse to let you stay comfortable with announced opinions that may be demonstrably wrong, or (more likely) may just not be taking into account a wider world of evidence that points in other likely directions. If you are an emerged EC, then you are no stranger to the struggle of letting go of formerly cherished convictions that you now see could not hold up under either biblical or scientific lights. Nobody here should be bullying you about remaining stubborn stepping stones (if indeed that’s what they are) you aren’t ready to let go of yet. If or when you decide to do a deeper dive into I.d. there are plenty of existing threads already around for you to peruse.
“Problem”? That comes across to me as a very loaded word. Better to think of it as a relationship to be explored, not a problem to be solved.
You’re right that it’s hard to dialogue with someone who doesn’t understand your world view. But it’s equally hard for that person if you don’t understand their world view. This is simply the reality of life in the 21st century. Abortion. Transgender issues. Geopolitics. Israel and Hamas.
So I think the important thing is to ensure my contribution to a dialogue is beyond reproach. Am I striving to understand your thoughts as well as mine? Am I being patient? Am I refraining from rushing to assumptions? Am I listening?
And if necessary, am I exiting graciously from a conversation that may realistically be going nowhere? Am I for instance refusing to make judgments about the other despite failure to progress the discussion?
Why hang out where atheists are disparaging you? Or read their stuff? Technical scientific literature doesn’t have room to deal with metaphysics or philosophy. Authors who wander into those areas are wandering off topic. Move on.
1 Like
SkovandOfMitaze
(One 8 ounce steak used as much water as 6,000 ai searches. )
64
Well I can tell you I only read your first sentence and then stopped.
Then I did stop reading his posts and responded to the other guy. Just like I’m responding to you this final time.
And again. I never said what he believed was stupid. I did not do ■■■■ that was even aggressive. I asked him to explain his ■■■■ position. Plain and simple. Now I don’t give a rats. For however long I’m here. For however long he’s here. I probably won’t read a single post of his. Again asking someone to clarify their position is the bare minimum and not debating at all. All I know is that he believes in some kind of form of intelligent design under the guise of fine tuning and that was as detailed as he got. I don’t even know if he’s referring to cosmology, abiogenesis or evolution. So how could I possibly even be debating him. I was genuinely curious what he was referring to. Asked multiple times. Gave up and stopped caring. People get pissy because I ask what the hell are you even talking about. It’s pathetic. It’s what this entire forum is slowly rotting into.
Skeptics have accepted evidence for and been convinced of all kinds of things. Continental drift comes to mind. Chaos theory is another paradigm shift.
That’s another excuse for not presenting evidence, and an admission that you don’t have any to present.
Don’t blame others for your inability to support your ideas.
Evidence is irrelevant so what difference does it make what type of evidence?
I do not have to prove my faith, or the existence of God to you. This not about my faith, it is about your unwillingness to see beyond the limits that you yourself have set.
If I am “playing” in your playground (science) then you have a certain amount of control on what is valid. ID is not in your playground so the rules do not apply.
As for the ability of ToE to complete creation… that appears to be subjective rather than proof based. The evidence you need died millions of years ago. All you have is a collection of inanimate skeletons, fossilised t’boot. Everything else is supposition and conjecture wrapped up in naratives.