You know what, I thought about this question when I was writing
my reply last night.
I think at the end of the day, Eternal Hope does not exist to
attempt to debate the undebatables. In the past, such attempts are
always futile and will again inevitably end up screaming at each
other. So no point.
Im not sure why you keep referring to this topic as
undebatable. Is it because you already have a clear stand on the
issue of evolution that it cannot be known as a fact? Previous
attempts were mostly made by people who only gave their opinions.
You see, subjective arguments without any support will mostly end
that way.
I think EH exist as a platform for people who are seeking
Christian answer - by seeking, I am saying seeking amicably. I know
who are the non-Christians who are at least friendly towards us.
These folk will agree to disagree. In the case as this thread,
since you have already drew the conclusion that evolution is
CORRECT and the Christian view of creationism is wrong, then
therefore there is nothing to discuss. May I quote from your
opening line: "I believe you do not want anybody to come to a
satisfactory conclusion, since most of the evidence point to
evolution being a fact."
The SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION, for you, in this case, is that
evolution is a fact. Therefore, since the conclusion is already
presented, there is really nothing to say anymore.
So, gracefully, I feel that I want to agree to disagree and move
on.
I have never said that creationism is wrong. I merely said that
most scientists agree on evolution being a fact and I posted the
links to support this view. Of course, after reading up on
evolution, I have taken the stand that evolution is a fact. Does it
mean that only people who have not taken sides can discuss a topic?
If so, I guess all christians should not be allowed to discuss
anything, isnt it?
The satisfactory conclusion for me is one that is drawn with the
right amount of evidence. If you can present your side of the case
so strongly with various references that point to evolution not
being a fact and that the scientific community is, on a whole,
against the idea of evolution, then that to me is a satisfactory
conclusion.
If someone, say, wish to know about churches or Christian life,
or Christian perspective, sure we can discuss and give our
opinions. While opinions share are based on our experiences and our
understand, nonetheless, they are relatively valid to one seeking
these opinions. We have, in the past, many of such people, and such
people know that when opinions differ, we shake hands and move
on.
I have no problems with your opinions on this.
No need to get so upset. Yes, there are lots of links in wiki,
unfortunately the realisation is that the links are of course based
on the inclination of that particular wiki writer. To be totally
objective, you should also posts the links to creationism.
Unfortunately, I fear that your goal is just to present the side
that you believe in. In order to spare readers the need to search:
here is the wiki link to creationism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism which also contains tons
of links to other pro-creationism websites.
You are only half right. Most of the links are based on the
inclination of the writer but they are still links to sites that
are considered objective in these matters. Doesnt that still make
the linked site objective? Let me give an example. The writer
referenced a link to the InterAcademy Panel, where the science
associations of 67 countries signed a statement regarding their
stand on the issue of evolution. Did this suddenly cause an erosion
of the websites objectivity? Your statements here certainly give
the feeling that whatever the writer referenced, are totally
unobjective.
Like I have said, I havent even gotten to why creationism is right
or wrong and such. My statements and links only touched on why
evolution should be considered a fact. Im not sure why creationism
should be given any time of our day, but if you can find links to
the scientific community saying good things about creationism, I
would be happy to give it a read. But I must stress that it should
come from the general scientific community and not the christian
scientific community.
Even if something is accepted by most scientists it doesn't mean
it is correct, take the former-planet Pluto for example. All kids
will now have to relearn that there are really only 8 planets in
the solar system ... and how many years has it been in the
textbooks that Pluto is a planet?
If you really need to know, I am NOT one of those who accept the
NEW EARTH CREATION THEORY. So please don't get all up in arms and
start accusing people of not accepting what you think is
right.
Firstly, there are exceptions to everything. When have we used
exceptions as the basis of our arguments?
Secondly, the problem here is not so much whether a fact can be
changed, but it's whether people take evolution as a fact. The
beauty of science is that it is constantly advancing. Today, we may
consider something to be a fact. But tomorrow, new discoveries may
be found that invalidates it. Just like your father. You may know
him as your dad and may call him so. But tomorrow, you may find out
that he is your actually your brother. (Something similar happened
to Jack Nicholson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_nicholson#Biography_and_personal_life)
But until that happens, you still consider him as your father to be
a fact, dont you?
At the end of the day, all of us merely form opinions based on
what we read and understand. Even scientist are not truly sure.
They are only proposing concepts and theories, and scenarios are
extrapolated.
Im not sure if this statement harms or aids your cause. The
scientists try their best to investigate natural phenomena through
observation, theoretical explanation and experimentation. If you
are putting down scientists in general, how much less do you view
those christian scientists who endorse creationism based on
insufficient evidence?
I am not against the discussion of the origins of earth, I am
against the tone that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
When that happens, it ceases to being a discussion, it will become
a mud-slinging contest, which nobody wins.
If the tone of my answers is the problem, then I can change it.
No big deal. But I must question why this thread, which so
obviously is a flame bait, is allowed to flourish while my thread
was closed in a day:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212066
I think there's some bias here but I also understand that you guys
are the moderaters and I am not.
