WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

It does make teaching solid scientific method challenging. If we are to compete in the global marketplace, that distortion of scientific thinking is a handicap. IMHO, of course.

I have a dear friend who is a solid creationist. We've had many interesting conversations over the years. I don't know what to do about it. I certainly admire her faith, and her intelligence overall, just not her science, but as much as we can poke holes in their science, there is a real ability for them to poke holes in ours, something most of the believers who post on a board like this simply don't have the creation science specific education to do ... but my friend, she does. Like I said, interesting conversations.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 25 Apr 2011, 2:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I am very familiar with it. It's why I don't really do much with pleasantries: because I'm worn beyond that.

But I still have to live amongst these apes worshiping their sun gods and worshiping their own inability to comprehend.

Bangladesh?



I know you are sincere when you say you read such an article, but I judge the validity of the claim without access to the article myself. I can say "perhaps", but there were major civilizations around "1,000" to "5,000" that left a lot of documents behind, which pretty much says that it was hardly a global catastrophe, if it did happen at all.

Actually, flicking through Wikipedia I found this. Is this what you were referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

I find this offensive.

In other words "I should've known better than to make unfounded assumptions about your religiosity and I don't wanna own up to it since I know I done goofed up"

Premarital sex is obviously legal, but having a pro-life stance isn't convenient for someone who isn't gonna wait til marriage right? So that kinda s**ts on your theory that we hold this stance outta mere selfishness. Great, you're using the "It's none of your business" rhetoric again just like everything else you've been rehashing. I think I've made it clear many times why that argument doesn't challenge anything pertaining to my stance. Ad nauseam must be your MO. I think a lot of people would be happier if they can carelessly drive down the road without worrying about running people over, but then again it would be at the expense of the lives of others so I don't think it's unwarranted for me to be against that. Anyways you can go ahead and keep banging your head against the wall but I'm not gonna bother rehashing my rebuttals to those weak arguments you've made for the millionth time.

I love this part. It's always fun to point out supposed hypocrisies that actually turn out to be congruent with one's views. btw I'm pro-life, against the death penalty, against all corporate welfare, and not in favour of abolishing social welfare altogether so I'm sorry I messed up your cue of unfounded assumptions, but you'll thank me later after you develop some creativity in the absence of those assumptions you use as crutches. Even if I was pro-life and in favour of the death penalty or whatever you wanna pull, there's nothing hypocritical about protecting an innocent fetus' right to live while putting someone to death for the harm they've done to others

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 25 Apr 2011, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

God of the gaps isn't god, it's acceptance of ignorance and an accepting of stoppage in learning.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY[/youtube]

Guess what I find offensive.

I don't know.

And absolutely, it was not global. I said it would have FELT global to people living there who had no idea what the globe was really like. I think the language in the Bible is "the world." Well, that is a relative concept, isn't it? A flood the size in the Wiki article would have covered the world to a people who travelled by foot and maybe camel or small boat.

Next year my daughter takes ancient civilization. Maybe I can figure out the starting point then.

My take away is simply that I believe the story is based on an actual major flood in the middle east region. Not a global flood, just a major flood in the region. And ... if it is or if it is not connected to the passage has not and cannot be proven. It's just a speculation that makes sense.

It is apparently considered fact that the region was definitely subject to flooding back then, so I don't think it's a huge stretch.

I have not called into question your ability to comprehend, or called you an ape. Yet you just did both to me. Indirectly, but done all the same.

This thread is about why anyone thinks that should be allowed on Wrong Planet. It should not be. Find another way to express yourself.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 25 Apr 2011, 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good point, but to take that perspective does imply that the Bible was a mythological book with dubious grounding in reality (which is where I stand...)

I've never made any claim otherwise. I only claim that the writing was God inspired. God inspired does not mean historically accurate.

I do find it interesting to see how the history related stories in the Bible may have evolved, however, and I find it interesting to figure out what may be fact and what may be simplified or embellished for purposes of conveying God's message, because that actually helps one figure out what God's message is. The old testament is a history of sorts, classic oral tradition, just not the type of history where you can count years and generations - - which is, unfortunately, what the literalists feel they must do, and why they feel compelled to come up with creation science in order to get the pieces of what they know put together with what they believe. My world is so much simplier, I don't have to mash the pieces together to understand how faith and science can co-exist.

Catholics are not taught to take the Bible literally. Thank goodness.

Great point!

I will ask you, then, to look at how you approach the conversation to see if maybe your style invites it. I can have that conversation without any of what you mention. I credit their intelligence, and they credit mine. Usually have to give first to get it back.

I've seen a lot more self-righteousness in your posts in this thread than effort at bridge building or true discourse. You've done a good job of making me feel like you think I'm an ape full of self-delusion, and you weren't even trying. WHY would I try to have a complicated conversation with someone who has made their negative perception of all I'm going to say so clear?

So. Just asking.

Blind post. Sorry, not going to read thoroughly through 20 pages.

I am a Christian, and even if I wanted to, I cannot hide that because it just comes out. When I state my beliefs, I mean for it to be stating MY beliefs, not telling others what THEIR beliefs should be. It is not my job to convert you. And I don't call other people names like heathen, etc.

Do I get bashed just for being a Christian? Yes, although less often than others who do come in with "You're going to hell because you don't believe...." Is this confined to Wrong Planet and its PPR section? Heck no. It's all over the internet.

Yes, that would be half of why I am firmly pro-choice, ie that I know intelligent and moral people differ on this, even though I do personally believe the fetus is life from conception.

Cool