Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?

Treacherous fucker. Just when you think someone's on your side.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I love the way he asserts as fact

"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."

Moron.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are, then, to say the least, dismissive of any suggestion that 'twas He who set Earth's evolutionary processes in motion?

On what basis, doctor?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have to say I was disappointed to read in the Sam Harris link (2nd bottom) that Collins 'found' God one dewy morning in a waterfall that he thought was, um... really pretty. I was hoping for something a little more substantial than that, I must admit.

But, still, he's clearly a very clever bloke - and thus is bound to be a lot righter about this than you or me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The basis that the good doctor has no more evidence for it than I have for leperchauns. He has a mental dichotomy that some of us managed to avoid. The poor bastard.

 

Why do you think this is so ? How about all the clever people who do not believe in God ? You are making a mistake which is known to psychologists as the halo effect. Because a person is clever in one field we tend to assume that what he says about subjects outside his area of expertise must be true.

 

The same history books that were written by the historians that you hold in such high regard?

"Whatever. History? You believe all that crap spouted by all those overeducated pseudointellectuals? Are you gullible or what?"

REF: Post 201

 

You are overlooking something significant. Witness statements can be very wrong. Check out the experiments by psychologists which show that a number of people witnessing an event will often give divergent accounts of what they saw, at a later time. It should be easy for you to find details to support what I am saying.

A witness in court, whose testimony can exonerate someone, is subjected to rigorous examination/ cross-examination. He will have to provide solid evidence to support what he says. There is no escaping the need for evidence.

As you say, testimony needs some sort of support but you never provide any. Your examples of testimony, unlike that of the bible can be checked out. A job application may result in a phone call to a previous employer and academic qualifications can be checked.The same goes for credit checks and so on . A positive test for drugs will be supported by evidence in the form of blood and urine tests.

You are also overlooking another important point. Evidence may not be what it seems.Documents may be forged, for example. Look at the extent of credit card fraud. Forgers succeed because their documents are not subjected to rigorous test at the time they are used. Credit card fraud normally comes to light when the issuer detects a sudden difference in the pattern of expenfiture or when the card is reported lost or stolen.

So, I'm afraid you cannot escape the nedd for evidence to support a claim. You have yet to offer any.

 

You clearly do not fall into the overeducated category, whatever it means to be overeducated.

A pseudo-intellectual is undereducated, so your "overeducated pseudointellectuals" is an oxymoron.

History is not all crap. There are inaccurcies which will generally be rooted out by comparing different sources. History, unlike the bible, has continuity to the present day. God stopped publishing about 2,000 years ago .

If you doubt history, you can have no confidence in the bible.

 

It wasn't me doubting history, another baseless accusation.

 

From this I assume you wish to debate super.

 

I think you are going to have to express yourself more clerarly if you wish to be undertood, In the first place we are not looking at a baseless accusation or any accusation at all; merely a response to your statement that "history is all crap.........."

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

Again I do not understand you. What do you mean by debating "super" ?

 

I did not make that statement... Read back and you will find out who did, I provided a ref to the post number, to make it easier.

 

You are right. I misunderstood your ref to Super. In any event I hold the view, alreadty stated, about history. And an oxymoron is an oxmoron whoever says it.

 

I'm fully aware of the 'halo effect' so don't patronise me, arsewipe.

But listen: this bloke headed the human genome project. He's a fucking clever bloke!!! So if he says there's a God then believe me, there fucking well is one!!!

 

Hey are you back

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

P.S. be nice to Myles..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Glad yopu are aware of the halo effect and that you know how to be abusive. But that's the extrent of your knowledge, I'm afraid.

What you are doing is appealing to authority and that is a no. no. But I'm sure you know that also. But to remind you, you are arguing that. as someone is clever, he is more likly to be right than I am. So all you have to explain is why this clever person should be believed as opposed to lots of other clever people who do not share his views.

It comes down to asking what evidence he has to support his belief. He has no objective evidence. His belief is based on his feelings. So think again, unless you are looking for a father-figure to comfort you.

You are long on arsewipes but sadly short on logic.

 

Haven't you noticed ? He's a gentleman and a scholar. That "arsewipe" was a brilliant rebuttal.It left me speechless.

 

Sarcasm alert. I stated that in response to your previous statements regarding how little respect you have for the statements of educated scientists.

 

Whatever.