Why are you unconvincing?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm not looking for an apology neighbor. You seem to assume we are here for the same reason

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You are trying to play a game, please dont

It's not a game.
Surely you feel the same about the evolutionists you speak with.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't convince anyone of your side.

It bothers me that they are so close minded they can't undeerstand that the evidence isn't there to prove evolution
It bothers me they can't see that the science is questionable
It bothers me the faith they have they won't admit

It doesn't bother me that they believe in evolution
As I stated, evolution it's a logical belief, my beliefs are the strange ones
I use to believe in evolution, how can I not understand why others do

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You are trying to play a game, please dont

It's not a game.
Surely you feel the same about the evolutionists you speak with.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't convince anyone of your side.

It bothers me that they are so close minded they can't undeerstand that the evidence isn't there to prove evolution
It bothers me they can't see that the science is questionable
It bothers me the faith they have they won't admit

It doesn't bother me that they believe in evolution
As I stated, evolution it's a logical belief, my beliefs are the strange ones
I use to believe in evolution, how can I not understand why others do

you say evolution is a logical belief, but theres no evidence for it? ...hmm mkay.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Sorry for dragging you into that.

It's a valid thread
To convince me you only need valid science
Not the fossil record as it stands, that proves nothing,
Saying that there is a lot of undiscovered fossils is not evidence
Fruit fly evolving into fruit fly is not evidence an elephant evolving into a tusk less elephant is not rvidence, bacteria evolving into bacteria, you get the point

I would like to see the full fossil record, an evolutionary lineage, not some pictures of what is possible
I would like answers to the Big Bang and abiogenesis, relevant or irrelevant it's important to me
It does amaze me how those with an opposing view argue how irrelevant the BB and abiogenesis is to them it's not to me. They can just dismiss it, I can't

As a Christian, I accept other chtistians who believe in evolution, it's their choice, I can believe in evolution as well without it effecting my faith to much, just don't see the science

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You are trying to play a game, please dont

It's not a game.
Surely you feel the same about the evolutionists you speak with.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't convince anyone of your side.

It bothers me that they are so close minded they can't undeerstand that the evidence isn't there to prove evolution
It bothers me they can't see that the science is questionable
It bothers me the faith they have they won't admit

It doesn't bother me that they believe in evolution
As I stated, evolution it's a logical belief, my beliefs are the strange ones
I use to believe in evolution, how can I not understand why others do

you say evolution is a logical belief, but theres no evidence for it? ...hmm mkay.

Mmkay
How about its more logical than believing in a big sky fairy, spaghetti monster type being that has no empirical evidence I can see
It's not hard to understand, maybe it is

The fact you can't understand that doesn't surprise me

Aliens seem to be a logical belief, I don't believe in visitors from other planets. Simple?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You are trying to play a game, please dont

It's not a game.
Surely you feel the same about the evolutionists you speak with.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't convince anyone of your side.

It bothers me that they are so close minded they can't undeerstand that the evidence isn't there to prove evolution
It bothers me they can't see that the science is questionable
It bothers me the faith they have they won't admit

It doesn't bother me that they believe in evolution
As I stated, evolution it's a logical belief, my beliefs are the strange ones
I use to believe in evolution, how can I not understand why others do

you say evolution is a logical belief, but theres no evidence for it? ...hmm mkay.

Mmkay
How about its more logical than believing in a big sky fairy, spaghetti monster type being that has no empirical evidence I can see
It's not hard to understand, maybe it is

The fact you can't understand that doesn't surprise me

Aliens seem to be a logical belief, I don't believe in visitors from other planets. Simple?

so you dont subscribe to everything that seems logical to you? that's what you are saying?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Sorry for dragging you into that.

It's a valid thread
To convince me you only need valid science
Not the fossil record as it stands, that proves nothing,
Saying that there is a lot of undiscovered fossils is not evidence
Fruit fly evolving into fruit fly is not evidence an elephant evolving into a tusk less elephant is not rvidence, bacteria evolving into bacteria, you get the point

I would like to see the full fossil record, an evolutionary lineage, not some pictures of what is possible
I would like answers to the Big Bang and abiogenesis, relevant or irrelevant it's important to me
It does amaze me how those with an opposing view argue how irrelevant the BB and abiogenesis is to them it's not to me. They can just dismiss it, I can't

As a Christian, I accept other chtistians who believe in evolution, it's their choice, I can believe in evolution as well without it effecting my faith to much, just don't see the science

Lets say someone wants to see gods full genome, dental record, and pedigree. if this is unable to be provided, does it thus follow that such a being is not real? in accordance with your standards in empirical evidence?

Oops

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Lets say someone wants to see gods full genome, dental record, and pedigree. if this is unable to be provided, does it thus follow that such a being is not real? in accordance with your standards in empirical evidence?

I think you are failing to understand your own question

I dont try and convince people here God exists, simple?
I question the science of evolution, simple?

I am at a bit of a loss as to your common sense and question

I believe in God by faith, I have stated as such numerous times, I dont have the same faith in evolution or the pseudo science behind it.
Is that not a simple construct

what if I asked you.
You have faith in the science of evolution, why cant you have faith in God, if you are an atheist

a reply to: Raggedyman

I love you, man. You are the perfect example of the irrational stubbornness that this thread is about. Thanks for being THAT guy. I just can't tell if you're playing that role on purpose. You have never once addressed any evidence posted you just claimed it all didn't count. There are certain people that couldn't be convinced of anything no matter how thoroughly you explain it.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Lets say someone wants to see gods full genome, dental record, and pedigree. if this is unable to be provided, does it thus follow that such a being is not real? in accordance with your standards in empirical evidence?

I think you are failing to understand your own question

I dont try and convince people here God exists, simple?
I question the science of evolution, simple?

I am at a bit of a loss as to your common sense and question

I believe in God by faith, I have stated as such numerous times, I dont have the same faith in evolution or the pseudo science behind it.
Is that not a simple construct

what if I asked you.
You have faith in the science of evolution, why cant you have faith in God, if you are an atheist

thats the thing though, or one thing anyways. there is less basis for theology than there is for evolution, but instead of critiquing theology, here ya be giving evolution a hard time because...you are bothered by a competent rivalry? rather one sided at this point id have to say. my skepticism has been largely laid to rest by the overwhelming number of advances we have made as a direct result of evolutionary research, to answer your question. advances that would not have been possible if mes were based in unreliable methods as you seem to suggest. A question in return - why exactly are you so unconvincing, raggedy?

i also noticed you avoided my question concerning your apparent disconnect between things that seem logical and your capacity for accepting them. evolution is logical, but has no evidence. you said that. you also said it makes more sense than sky fairies, but in your next post you asserted your theological leanings. whats with all the switching back and forth? you can't be consistent but accuse science of inconsistency. you criticize the sprinkle of faith in science while ignoring the pillars of faith that support theism. all faith is equal to you, but one kind is superior to another? why are you so unconvincing...I think i may already know the answer...the question is, has the op spotted it yet?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

thats the thing though, or one thing anyways. there is less basis for theology than there is for evolution, but instead of critiquing theology, here ya be giving evolution a hard time because...you are bothered by a competent rivalry? rather one sided at this point id have to say. my skepticism has been largely laid to rest by the overwhelming number of advances we have made as a direct result of evolutionary research, to answer your question. advances that would not have been possible if mes were based in unreliable methods as you seem to suggest. A question in return - why exactly are you so unconvincing, raggedy?

i also noticed you avoided my question concerning your apparent disconnect between things that seem logical and your capacity for accepting them. evolution is logical, but has no evidence. you said that. you also said it makes more sense than sky fairies, but in your next post you asserted your theological leanings. whats with all the switching back and forth? you can't be consistent but accuse science of inconsistency. you criticize the sprinkle of faith in science while ignoring the pillars of faith that support theism. all faith is equal to you, but one kind is superior to another? why are you so unconvincing...I think i may already know the answer...the question is, has the op spotted it yet?

You know I never understood Calvinism, its an interesting theology and its simple but its extreme, fundamentalist, black and white. Wait, this is not a criticism of theology thread, so I seem out of context, better stop I guess.
I have plenty of criticisms for many theologies, dont doubt that for a second

I am asking people to explain evolution scientificaly, not based on faith.
I am not telling anyone to believe in creation, just questioning evolution and the science it claims to be based on.

If I want to convince anyone anything, its that the science is not science.
I cant convince them because they are ignorant of science and poorly educated.

Evolution may even be right, I just dont see the evidence in science.

I am consistent, just not conforming to your standard
I criticise evolution simply because there is no room in science for any faith, even for, as you state "the sprinkle of faith in science" and I dont think its a sprinkle, I think its a big fat dollop

I think your understanding of science is corrupted if you think it can be mixed with any amount of faith

Ok ok.
Alright. Enough already.
You have convinced me that you are unconvincing.

Wait... What?

a reply to: Raggedyman

I am asking people to explain evolution scientificaly, not based on faith.
I am not telling anyone to believe in creation, just questioning evolution and the science it claims to be based on.

first point, it helps if you actually understand evolution enough to ask intelligent questions. second point, this is about why you are not convincing. ever wondered that? or is it everyone else's fault for just not listening and accepting?

If I want to convince anyone anything, its that the science is not science.
I cant convince them because they are ignorant of science and poorly educated.

why are you so intent on convincing anyone of anything? is it not enough that you have figured stuff out for yourself? im also curious as to what sort of experience you have in a lab that you would accuse science of not doing what it is supposed to. I would ask you to provide examples and demonstrate the inadequacy of science, but you would have to make a separate thread of that, and so many threads like that are already a thing. spoiler warning, its not the scientists or 'evolutionists' that look silly in the end. plenty of threads to make that case, like i was saying.

Evolution may even be right, I just dont see the evidence in science.

I am consistent, just not conforming to your standard
I criticise evolution simply because there is no room in science for any faith, even for, as you state "the sprinkle of faith in science" and I dont think its a sprinkle, I think its a big fat dollop

really need to point out here that your previous posts have stated that evolution is a logical belief. you cant take that back. having pointed that thing out, let me continue with you are not consistent. I already demonstrated that in a previous post on this very page. when I say sprinkle of faith, I mean the faith you have in everyone. probabilistic faith, some might call it. but given the overwhelming advances I mentioned earlier that are a direct product of evolutionary research (advancements that are only possible if evolution turned out to be accurate) it seems reasonable to elevate that faith to calculated trust. inductive reasoning says that mes will continue to inform our scientific achievements, and calculated trust says that I believe professionals worldwide will make that happen. feel free to prove me wrong. but yet again....why Mr raggedy are you so unconvincing? you keep avoiding that question. you have nothing but skepticism and no reason to be skeptical.

a reply to: TzarChasm

So
Do you have any repeatable testable observable evidence that an animal turns into another???

Can you show me the geological time scale in a natural formation, index fossils alive today???

I accept from an secular perspective, evolution is a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding life evolving.
Doesnt mean the science is true

a reply to: Raggedyman

the question is why are you so unconvincing?

Too many come here and into other forums with some kind of pretense that they can change peoples thoughts. Often to boost their ego. In reality it doesn't always work that way,

a reply to: Raggedyman

just not the that relies on assumption and imagination

I presume you meant to have another word in between "the" and "that."
By contextual examination, I assume (and imagine) that what you meant to say was:

"just not the KIND that relies on assumption and imagination."

So then you need to explain the juxtaposition with believing the fables told to you by people who assume the Bible is "truth" instead of "imagination," and your utter acceptance of it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is a lie.

See - you're losing to begin with, and then losing even more. Your "religious" beliefs rely ENTIRELY on assumption and imagination. Very lively imagination. And conclusion-jumping. That's why no one takes you seriously.

Mohammed had a lively (pathologically lively) imagination. People were convinced by him all the same. A madman with a sword is preferred over a staid and stoic investigative exploration of facts, possibilities, and the most likely and easily applied scenario.

He was mad. He was in a cave, alone, and imagined he was talked to by an angel. He told everyone. They believed him.

Unfortunately for you, just because you say it doesn't make it true. Same for him. Why was he "convincing"? Same reason ISIS is convincing to their homicidal/suicidal walking dead....
they wanted to be. And/or he had a hot temper, lots of swords, and would brook no refusal.

You believe in what others see as assumption and imagination. And yet, like the poster above astutely said, you do nothing but attack others for showing up with PROOF that you are wrong.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Hi buzz
That's a really nice Christmassy owl, nice

I chose my faith, no one else, that's what's special about being me, my choice

a reply to: TzarChasm

I cant convince the average evolutionist that evolution is unscientific because they don't understand science.
That and they need evolution to be true

I don't need evolution to be true, I need better evidence

a reply to: Raggedyman

Everyone is special in terms of their choices.

That doesn't change the fact that you accuse others of being the exact way you are.....
when they are not....and that is called .........

well, trolling.
Basically.
There is no continuity or evidence of insight and growth in your volume of posts.
You just keep doing the same thing, and expecting different results. There is a name for that ......