Creationists: Have you ever read a book about Evolution? , page 4

originally posted by: Cinrad
a reply to: flyingfish

What is the point of posting the evidence, it would take a thousand years of arguing back and forth before you or I were convinced otherwise to what we already believe,

By that token, why post at all then? It's intellectually dishonest to sit there and make all manner of insinuation and claim while refusing to support your position while simultaneously expecting others to support their statements.

this thread has drifted from its original intent (or maybe the intent was always to get it to where you would browbeat people who dont believe that main stream science media is an impartial reporter of the evidence) and is now pointless.

Nobody's intent is to browbeat anyone else. If expecting people to support conjecture and hyperbole with proper citations is browbeating then perhaps ATS isn't the appropriate forum for you. We like looking at the evidence here. It gives us a better perspective of people's positions. Even when they aren't able to fully articulate said position in many instances. Now, what exactly is "mainstream science media"? Is there a special news outlet specifically to push flawed science that I'm unaware of? Because I'm not sure where you get your science info from, but many of us refer to the original work from peer reviewed journals so we can see the actual data as opposed to just taking somes shortened abstract as gospel truth.

Well not really pointless, but I wont be bothered spending a thousand years posting back and forth. This is how me posting evidence would go: 1) I post a few links to papers that agree with Genesis; 2) you post 3 papers that show my paper is bull#; 3) I respond to each of your three papers, each time taking longer to go back in the main stream science media to address specific points about a technique and how the original developers reported the limitations of thier technique, or to point out how the data can be interpreted another way; 4) you post reports that have to do with what I am referring to and and reports that dont and 5) whilst we argue about which reports are correct we bring in other points from previous posts and then; 6) we decide that we have got a life and you or I dont really matter that much to you or I. It is a no win situation, if you really want my proof, you will find it in exactly the same place I would - the internet.

As a former or professional in a related field, I personally get my information from the stack of journals I subscribe to as well as the physical library I have in my office. The same holds true for many others on here who you seem to believe are mere keyboard warriors who learn talking points from a Google search. By the same token, unless the "papers" you cite have been published in an accredited journal, it's not a paper. It's an article written for consumption by a target audience who's mind is already made up and presents no new or science based data. If It did, it would have been published, the data would have been reviewed and if the data was testable and repeatable the whole world would know about it. But that doesn't ever seem to happen. Instead, those "Papers" get published online and hosted on websites owned by proponents of YEC. That's not how science works.

And if you're still reading at this point I take my hat off to you, I have had enough of the bull# and dont really care anymore what lies you have swallowed. I dont think anyone else is reading anymore so we can probably stop shilling each other anyway.

That's kind of cute. I like how being able to understand peer reviewed data and understanding how the scientific method works and how it apies to MES is somehow swallowing lies. Only one side of this discussion is shilling.

originally posted by: Cinrad

originally posted by: peter vlar

And you studied Genesis when? Oh, you didn't?

Would you like a hand removing your foot from your mouth? I studied for several years actually in preparation for seminary.

I dont believe you. Prove it. What is the purpose of Genesis 2?

You don't even see your own hypocrisy do you? You won't support your hyperbolic conjecture but dand others play a game of gotcha huh? The difference here though is that I actually can support my statements.

Genesis 2 while expanding a bit on the creation story, specifically how it relates to man, such as the institution of the sabbath, which was made for man, to further his holiness and comfort, ver. 1 - 3.

A more detailed account of man's creation, as the summary of the whole work, ver. 4 - 7.

A description of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man in it under the obligations of a law and covenant, ver. 8 - 17.

The creation of the woman, her marriage to the man, and the institution of the ordinance of marriage, ver. 18 - 25.

in sure having been brought up in an Irish Catholic family that the Franciscans I studied with have a slightly different POV on scripture than some Protestants and every evangelical so please feel free to add your personal critique. I look forward to it. Then perhaps we can actually revisit the topic of the OP