Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Some Notes About Me


ironhorse

Recommended Posts

 

 

Getting down basics, it can’t get any simpler than John 3:16.   

So to me, it was where else to go?  

Keep banging my head against the wall with countless arguments or thinking I should be able to get all the ducks in a row and KNOW everything about God? Seeking rock solid evidence before I accepted it as truth?

I was under no delusion that I could know everything.

So I maintained my Christian faith. I believe.

Since then I have tried to learn more and will continue to do the same.

For me, it’s a wonderful mysterious journey.

 

The decision Ironhorse made HERE and the false premise upon which he made it should not go un-examined by us.

.

.

.

He maintained his Christian faith because he couldn't know e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g about God and the Bible.

 

He tied the rejection of his Christian to an impossible condition - knowing everything about God and the Bible.

 

Surely he must have known beforehand that he could never know everything about God and the Bible?

.

.

.

So, either this was a knowing and deliberate ploy on his part to keep his belief system intact, or...

 

...he genuinely believed that the only condition he should reject his faith on is one of complete knowledge of God and the Bible.

 

If it's the former, then something's definitely rotten in the state of Ironhorse-land.

 

If it's the latter, then this is a sad indictment of his thinking.

 

 

Bump!

 

You don't need to know everything, Ironhorse.

 

That's simply wrong.

 

You're wrong.

 

The condition you set for yourself was wrong.

 

The decision you made was wrong.

 

If you stand by what you did, then you're still wrong.

 

PageofCupsNono.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

 

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3.Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4.Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5.Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

6.De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7.Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

As I said before, I’m number 2 on the scale. I can’t prove by science that God exists.

 

The scientific investigation of nature doesn't prove anything, Ironhorse.  

 

It simply gives us the best explanation of what we observe according to the current evidence.

 

So, yes my belief is based not only what I see as evidence but the bottom line is that it is faith.

 

What evidence?  You've been asked many, many times for specific examples and you still haven't given any.

 

Please cite the exact evidence you see.

 

I don’t KNOW everything. Tell me who does?

 

False!  Wrong!  Illogical!  Mistaken!  Erroneous!  Fallacious!  Irrational!  

 

We do not have to know everything to know enough to make informed decisions.

 

Your decision to keep your faith was not an informed one, nor even a sensible and reasoned one.

 

You set yourself an impossible target (knowing everything) so that you could keep on believing what you wanted (Christianity) and not pay attention to what the evidence actually told you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BAA and RedneckProf, I have a noob question regarding abiogenesis. Evolution is an ever ongoing process, but how come new parallel evolutions and (shadow-?) biospheres do not occur? Why can't abiogenesis happen again and again? Maybe it does and I'm simply ignorant of the facts?

 

Mostly because now there is free oxygen in the atmosphere and oceans.  There are other reasons, but start with that.

 

 

One really big reason is that the type of organic chemistry that could start off new abiogenesis is eaten as food by the many critters that have already evolved on Earth.

 

That being said, I've read articles about how there could be a "shadow" biome that exists... and we wouldn't even know how to test for it if it doesn't use DNA or other familiar markers we use to identify living things. It's really more of a thought experiment than an anything that could be given the weight of "hypothesis," let alone "theory."

 

EDIT: Ah, I should have known that The Redneck Professor would answer this before I could! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Ironhorse,

 

I feel compelled to delve a little deeper into your "decision" to reject evolution on account of having mistaken it for abiogenesis.  Your "mistake", whether intentional or not, demonstrates a failure on your part to thoroughly and objectively analyse the subject before drawing a conclusion.  Any basic biology textbook written on a high school level would have neatly summarized the difference between these two fields; but, either you had no access to such literature (unlikely, given the volume of tomes in dear old dad's library), or you had access but didn't use it, or, perhaps, you had access to the science but simply did not understand it well enough to make a truly informed decision.  

 

You did, however, make a decision.

 

An aboriginal, upon seeing a helium balloon for the first time, might make a "decision" that Gravity is not a sound scientific Theory.  He's unlikely, however, to have much to say concerning the Germ Theory of Disease, based solely upon the miracle of flight ensconced in the balloon.  What YOU have done, in making your decision to reject evolution based on its silence concerning HOW life began, is akin to rejecting the Germ Theory because the balloon remains aloft.  In other words, you are "rejecting" one scientific Theory, based upon the fact that anothercompletely different scientific discipline fails to live up to your expectations.

 

This is, at best, ignorance gone to seed; at worst, intellectual dishonesty.  This demonstrates your willingness to make decisions without being in possession of the facts.  Worse, it demonstrates your willingness to make decisions, not based upon fact and reason, but, rather, on what you believe the facts should be.

 

You then tied your decision to hold fast to your christian faith, to your rejection of evolution.  A major life philosophy based upon a decision you made without even bothering to understand the most basic principles upon which the Theory you rejected stood.  jesus mentioned something about building a house on sand, didn't he?

 

You claim you embrace christianity because you can't know everything.  But, if you apply the same haphazard approach to everything else that you've clearly applied to understanding basic biology, then I wonder if you can ever know anything.

 

Have a nice day,

TheRedneckProfessor

 

  “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

― William Paley (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18629-there-is-a-principle-which-is-a-bar-against-all)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T2M, I've heard of "shadow biosphere" theories that suggests that there could be lifeforms that are so "unconventional", that we might not even realize such alternate lifeforms are, in fact, life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse, do you really identify with this?  "2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there."

 

That's just wishful thinking, isn't it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following up on the RedneckProf's William Paley quote...

 

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

 

...I would like to review the evolution of this thread and then make a comment about Ironhorse.

.

.

.

In all, he's made four (4) posts.

The first was to create this thread, the second to answer the Dude's question about his driving license, the third to reply to rjn about Hinduism and to deny that he was raised a Christian by his parents (which Jeff has pointed out is just a dodge) and the fourth to restate part of his opening post. 

Yet he has not responded to Pratt's question about him confusing evolution with abiogenesis in # 9.

Nor has he responded to Disillusioned's critique of his opening post in # 23.

Nor has he responded to Bhim's comments about Hinduism and Jesus Christ in # 18 .

Nor has he responded to Florduh's comments about science and religion in # 25.

Nor has he responded to Brother Jeff's comments about Hinduism and Evolution in # 7.

Nor has he responded to Duderonomy's question about the Dawkins Scale in # 31.

Nor has he responded to the RedneckProf's questions and points about Evolution and Abiogenesis in # 13, 14, 19 and 29.

Nor has he responded to any of my criticisms, questions or points in # 10, 11, 12, 15, 26 and 27.

sdelsolray, Jeff and Thought2much have also participated in this thread and Ironhorse could have responded to them... but hasn't done so.

.

.

.

So it seems that Ironhorse doesn't just hold research, investigation and thinking in contempt.

He's had the three days in which to address our posts, but has instead chosen to dodge, to deny and to restate his own words. 

Oh... and to rush to reply to the Dude about his driving license, taking just seventeen (17) minutes to do so.

.

.

.

I therefore conclude that Ironhorse holds... US ...in contempt too.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to me, it was where else to go?

Keep banging my head against the wall with countless arguments or thinking I should be able to get all the ducks in a row and KNOW everything about God? Seeking rock solid evidence before I accepted it as truth?

I was under no delusion that I could know everything.

So I maintained my Christian faith. I believe.

Since then I have tried to learn more and will continue to do the same.

For me, it’s a wonderful mysterious journey.

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

 

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3.Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4.Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5.Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

6.De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7.Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

As I said before, I’m number 2 on the scale. I can’t prove by science that God exists. So, yes my belief is based not only what I see as evidence but the bottom line is that it is faith.

I don’t KNOW everything. Tell me who does?

 

Good reading on this topic from NPR:

 

Where Did Life Come From? The Mind? The Universe? Can We Even Know?

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/20/174729853/where-did-life-come-from-the-mind-the-universe-can-we-even-know

Hi Ironhorse. If I may ask: how do you make the jump from God to Jesus? God I understand. People seem to have an intrinsic need to believe in the supernatural or at least spiritual, and an anthropomorphic God fills this void quite well. But belief in Jesus requires a myriad more assumptions than belief in God, especially with respect to the gross adulteration of Jewish scriptures concerning messianic prophecy. Moreover, Jesus is not even a morally upright character. He brainwashed children to leave their families, lived off the generosity and naivete of wealthy widows, and most horrific: he introduced the evil concept of eternal conscious torment. Hitler would make a more morally upright god than Jesus, for his fires were not eternal. Of all gods you could pick, shouldn't Jesus be the last choice?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

Try asking Ironhorse about something... NOT ...to do with religion or science.

 

I think you'll find that he won't be too busy, he won't be out of town, his connection speed will be at warp 9 and he'll reply to you in under twenty (20) minutes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing for him to say. he already played his hand.

 

This is the quiet regroup and then IH will continue conversing like this thread never happened.

 

It is the only way forward unless the lightbulb went off finally. I don't think it did.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH. I'll say it again. There is no shame in realizing you beleive in a big delusion. No shame at all.

 

We all had to take that step and it would be hypocracy to mock you should you finally figure it out.

 

I kinda hope you don't as that is a painful realization. But if you are waivering, do it sooner than later. A late-in-life deconversion is not something I'd wish on anyone.

 

If you are older, and if your faith is weakening please go find friendlier fields to play in. You're not a bad guy at all but you just have no good arguments for us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

There's nothing for him to say. he already played his hand.

 

This is the quiet regroup and then IH will continue conversing like this thread never happened.

 

It is the only way forward unless the lightbulb went off finally. I don't think it did.

I will say, even though End3 and I have had our bowdy-hows, when he disappears for a while, there is, at least, a slim chance that he is genuinely considering his faith and what we have all said.  He will often come back like nothing happened, too; but then he will pick up where some previous thread left off and pursue that line of thinking again.  

 

There has been a progressive narrative with End3 over the years.

 

With Ironhorse, there's only been Bob Dylan lyrics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo!  BAA, Jeff, and Prof, you guys called it exactly.   We now have a "Trust Yourself" thread from Ironhorse, and it's got it all.  

 

Like this thread never happened? Check.

 

A super short response time from Ironhorse that isn't about religion or science? Check.

 

Dylan lyrics? Check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo!  BAA, Jeff, and Prof, you guys called it exactly.   We now have a "Trust Yourself" thread from Ironhorse, and it's got it all.  

 

Like this thread never happened? Check.

 

A super short response time from Ironhorse that isn't about religion or science? Check.

 

Dylan lyrics? Check. 

 

Well, Yes and No, Dude.

 

The Prof was right on the money, but (technically) Jeff and I didn't call it right.

 

I quoted Jeff in the 'Trust Yourself' thread, when he wrote this.

 

 

There's nothing for him to say. he already played his hand. 

 

This is the quiet regroup and then IH will continue conversing like this thread never happened. 

 

It is the only way forward unless the lightbulb went off finally. I don't think it did

 

 

Thing is, Ironhorse...  ISN'T ...conversing with us.

 

For there to be a conversation there has to be a two-way flow between the relevant parties.

 

And so long as he ignores our questions, our criticisms and the points we raise, there is no conversing going on.

 

Ironhorse is ignoring us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But BAA, in the Trust Yourself thread, Ironhorse is conversing...like this thread never happened. And it only took him six minutes to respond to TF about something not about religion. So I respectfully stand by what I said. You and Jeff were spot on too.  smile.png

 

Ironhorse says he is here to represent his faith, but to my knowledge he never said he was here to defend his faith. He's quick to defend the lyrics of a worldly songwriter, but gives no time to defending and discussing his faith and his Bible. That's quite revealing, don't you think (that's a rhetorical question of course)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But BAA, in the Trust Yourself thread, Ironhorse is conversing...like this thread never happened. And it only took him six minutes to respond to TF about something not about religion. So I respectfully stand by what I said. You and Jeff were spot on too.  smile.png

 

Ironhorse says he is here to represent his faith, but to my knowledge he never said he was here to defend his faith. He's quick to defend the lyrics of a worldly songwriter, but gives no time to defending and discussing his faith and his Bible. That's quite revealing, don't you think (that's a rhetorical question of course)?

 

Oh I see, he's equivocating on the difference between represent and defend?

 

Thanks, for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's nothing for him to say. he already played his hand.

 

This is the quiet regroup and then IH will continue conversing like this thread never happened.

 

It is the only way forward unless the lightbulb went off finally. I don't think it did.

I will say, even though End3 and I have had our bowdy-hows, when he disappears for a while, there is, at least, a slim chance that he is genuinely considering his faith and what we have all said.  He will often come back like nothing happened, too; but then he will pick up where some previous thread left off and pursue that line of thinking again.  

 

There has been a progressive narrative with End3 over the years.

 

With Ironhorse, there's only been Bob Dylan lyrics.

 

 

 

There's nothing for him to say. he already played his hand. ~ Jeff

 

The Lion's Den allows me, as a Christian, to post here. I hope to continue putting cards on the table. 

 

 

With Ironhorse, there's only been Bob Dylan lyrics. ~ TheRedneckProfessor

 

Right after I read this, the song "Trust Yourself" came to my mind. So I thought

I would start a new thread. The lyrics are insightful I think. Also last night I noticed that only three of the thirteen threads, on page one, were started by Christians. Low number I thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creepy...just creepy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

With Ironhorse, there's only been Bob Dylan lyrics. ~ TheRedneckProfessor

 

Right after I read this, the song "Trust Yourself" came to my mind. So I thought

I would start a new thread. The lyrics are insightful I think. Also last night I noticed that only three of the thirteen threads, on page one, were started by Christians. Low number I thought. 

 

So, you'd rather start and entirely new thread than stand and face the points we have raised here, or answer the questions we have asked?  Come on, boy.  This thread is your one chance to finally say something of merit and value; but you'd rather post Bob Dylan lyrics in an effort to change the subject.

 

Well, if this is the only kind of conversation you want to have with us, then I see your Dylan and raise you one Bono:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH is a gift.

Lurkers see how this works.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH is a gift.

Lurkers see how this works.

 

Very strong, solid arguments from atheists and a Hindu, all ex-christians, and IH fails to defend his faith. Of course, he's not beholden to defend it. But lurkers and people wavering will see this, and his silence speaks volumes. 

 

The question I want to know: is he refusing to defend it or is he unable? 

 

If he's refusing to defend it, then why? He should know that wavering, current christians will be reading this and a solid defense from him might convince some to stay. Assuming Jesus, Hell, God, the Bible and so forth are real, wouldn't a lack of defense be tantamount to sending those people to hell? When he's standing at the pearly gates, is it possible Jesus might ask "Why did you run so meekly from defending me? Other children watching saw this and left because you failed to stand up." 

 

My question, IH, is if hell is real, Jesus is real, and the Bible has it all right, why aren't you in here passionately defending your reasons? Maybe not for your sake, but for the sake of those on the fence? 

 

If he is unable to - which I believe boils down to the real reason why - he is unable to. I think we all might respect him coming in and saying "Guys, I just can't answer your questions because I just don't know." - That would show some intellectual honesty and I would respect that. 

 

But this is what christians do - they dodge. I did. You have to dodge in order to remain a christian, because being too honest with yourself risks an existential crisis, one that can bring down your entire worldview, leaving you emotionally screwed, and possibly financially, socially and even physically screwed (depending on where you live and who you are honest with). But I would prefer honesty over risk - I would rather know the truth than be happy. Being happy by believing bullshit leads nowhere and can have further dire consequences, so for that reason, I think it's unethical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH is a gift.

Lurkers see how this works.

 

Yup. Of course all of the lurkers aren't in the Lion's Den, but I'd bet that some of them are.

 

12:30 A.M.  6 users 55 guests.

 

12:40 A.M.  5 users 45 guests.

 

1:27 A.M. 3 users 50 guests.

 

1:37 A.M. 4 users 62 guests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IH is a gift.

Lurkers see how this works.

 

Yup. Of course all of the lurkers aren't in the Lion's Den, but I'd bet that some of them are.

 

12:30 A.M.  6 users 55 guests.

 

12:40 A.M.  5 users 45 guests.

 

1:27 A.M. 3 users 50 guests.

 

1:37 A.M. 4 users 62 guests.

 

 

Thanks for this, you guys!   3.gif

 

The Christian who never makes the play (by refusing to answer questions) can never lose (be shut down) ...but even then he loses.

 

smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am somewhat envious of sdelsolray's ability to say and mean a great deal in a very few words.  goodjob.gif

When he wrote, "Thank you for your skeptical appraisal story.  It explains much"  he didn't describe what that 'much' was.  But since I reckon that I'm on the same wavelength as sdelsolray and I can also see 'much' that Ironhorse's story explains,  I will list some points below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironhorse wrote...

So, I was pondering do we live in an eternal existing universe or did the Big Bang happen? Matter had to come from somewhere, so I went with the Big Bang idea. 1. What astronomers had observed seemed to prove this idea. 2.

Looking at it and thinking about what I see and knew of the world, I just could not accept that of this was a by chance, all random.  Life on earth is just too complex to have all come from warm spot in some ancient ocean billions of years ago. 3.

This was the crux of the issue for me. Even though I had read those lavishly illustrated books on evolution in elementary school and latter in high school, I just did not buy into the idea that all of this just evolved from lower life forms.  4.  Where, if it happened or is happening, where are the transitional species?   5.  If evolution occurred over unknown millions of years there should be tons of the transitional or intermediate forms of life. We should see them now I reasoned.

I agreed with Rob that both plants and animals can change to adapt to a given environment, but that was not evolution.  That was not life coming from non-life.  6.  I rejected evolution as a fact.

I watched Carl Sagan’s Cosmos when it aired. Was the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be?

To me, the answer was no.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  

Matter has to come from somewhere according to the principles of classical (physics) cause-and-effect.   But in quantum physics, strictly deterministic cause-and-effect does not apply and quantum mechanics (QM) is key to a proper understanding of Big Bang cosmology and the Inflationary model of the early universe.  Therefore, if Ironhorse went with the Big Bang because it appeared to offer a cause for the universe, then he did so on a false basis.  The classical physics of general relativity (GR) on it's own cannot be used to invoke the principle of cause-and-effect to bring about the Big Bang.  GR must be used in conjunction with QM to successfully explain the mechanism of Inflation that is integral to Big Bang cosmology.  

 

2.

Physics does not prove ideas.  The sciences that investigate the natural universe do not attempt to 'prove' anything about it.  They simply offer the best explanation of it according to the current evidence.  Ironhorse has often displayed a very poor grasp of science's purpose and remit.

 

3.

This is a textbook example of the informal logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

4.

Ironhorse practiced the selective dismissal and acceptance of scientific data and evidence known as 'cherry picking'.  He accepting the physics of the Big Bang, because it appeared to give him the necessary beginning of the universe, which he could square with the Creation narrative in the book of Genesis.  But he rejected Evolutionary science, because if humans evolved and were not created by God, then there was no historical Eden, no original sin and therefore no need for a redeemer (Jesus Christ) from that sin.  This selective approach to science shows that he was picking and choosing only those parts of it that agreed with his already established Christian faith.  His motivation for doing this was not to search out the truth but to preserve the belief system he had already decided was the truth.  

 

5.  

Where are the transitional species that are evidence of evolution, Ironhorse?  Here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

His claims about being diligent in searching out the truth must be qualified with the evidence that he did not and has not done so.  What is much more evident is that he either never adequately searched or that he stopped searching once he became a committed Christian and then only sought out scientific and historical evidence that confirmed his religious beliefs, ignoring or dismissing everything else. 

 

6.

Life coming from non-life is not Evolution, it is Abiogenesis.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This is a common point of confusion among Christians.  Evolution deals only with the changes life undergoes as it seeks to best adapt to changes in it's environment.  Abiogenesis is the change of non-living material into living material by natural (not supernatural) means.  Once again we can see that even though Ironhorse claims to be a seeker of the truth and a diligent reader, his understanding of science is woefully inadequate.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

1. 

Matter has to come from somewhere according to the principles of classical (physics) cause-and-effect.   But in quantum physics, strictly deterministic cause-and-effect does not apply and quantum mechanics (QM) is key to a proper understanding of Big Bang cosmology and the Inflationary model of the early universe.  Therefore, if Ironhorse went with the Big Bang because it appeared to offer a cause for the universe, then he did so on a false basis.  The classical physics of general relativity (GR) on it's own cannot be used to invoke the principle of cause-and-effect to bring about the Big Bang.  GR must be used in conjunction with QM to successfully explain the mechanism of Inflation that is integral to Big Bang cosmology. 

 

I commend you bornagainathiest for your expertise in science. I am woefully ignorant in high level scientific ideas. I did not expect you to agree with anything in my story but I hoped you would cut me some slack and accept my story for what it was. It was not meant to be a scientific inquiry.

The Big Bang Theory, at that time, was the leading explanation about how the universe began. In my story I did not say it was, I said it seemed to be the best explanation.

As far as I can tell it still is.

This is from Space.com: “The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.”

2.

Physics does not prove ideas.  The sciences that investigate the natural universe do not attempt to 'prove' anything about it.  They simply offer the best explanation of it according to the current evidence.  Ironhorse has often displayed a very poor grasp of science's purpose and remit.

I wrote that it seemed to be the best explanation. 

3.

This is a textbook example of the informal logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.   https://en.wikipedia..._from_ignorance

 

See my previous comment.

4.

Ironhorse practiced the selective dismissal and acceptance of scientific data and evidence known as 'cherry picking'.  He accepting the physics of the Big Bang, because it appeared to give him the necessary beginning of the universe, which he could square with the Creation narrative in the book of Genesis.  But he rejected Evolutionary science, because if humans evolved and were not created by God, then there was no historical Eden, no original sin and therefore no need for a redeemer (Jesus Christ) from that sin.  This selective approach to science shows that he was picking and choosing only those parts of it that agreed with his already established Christian faith.  His motivation for doing this was not to search out the truth but to preserve the belief system he had already decided was the truth.

 

“Selective dismissal”  ‘cherry picking”

Where did I say it “squared with the creation narrative” or say anything about Eden?

Where did I ‘cherry pick’ science to agree with the Christian faith?

“His motivation for doing this was not to search out the truth but to preserve the belief system he had already decided was the truth.”

 

In this sentence you trash the honesty of my story. Since you cannot accept my conclusion, not as yours, but mine, then what else can I say? The only way you would agree with me is if I abandoned the Christian faith.

5. 

Where are the transitional species that are evidence of evolution, Ironhorse?  Here... https://en.wikipedia...itional_fossils

His claims about being diligent in searching out the truth must be qualified with the evidence that he did not and has not done so.  What is much more evident is that he either never adequately searched or that he stopped searching once he became a committed Christian and then only sought out scientific and historical evidence that confirmed his religious beliefs, ignoring or dismissing everything else.

 

From the link you posted: Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.

 

6.

Life coming from non-life is not Evolution, it is Abiogenesis.  https://en.wikipedia...iki/Abiogenesis

This is a common point of confusion among Christians.  Evolution deals only with the changes life undergoes as it seeks to best adapt to changes in it's environment.  Abiogenesis is the change of non-living material into living material by natural (not supernatural) means.  Once again we can see that even though Ironhorse claims to be a seeker of the truth and a diligent reader, his understanding of science is woefully inadequate.

What I wrote:

I agreed with Rob that both plants and animals can change to adapt to a given environment, but that was not evolution. That was not life coming from non-life.

 

I know and accept that I am woefully inadequate in a lot of things.

 

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

~ Benjamin Franklin

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH, I agree with others here that you should directly answer our questions here before posting elsewhere, and that you should post serious, thoughtful responses with minimal vacuous pop cultural references. Some of us spend considerable time crafting and refining our responses, and your cursory foolishness is disrespectful to those efforts. Your behavior elucidates the thoughtlessness of Jesus, and his impotence to send anyone to the hell of his own invention.

 

You are perhaps a great force for deconversion via your poor witness, but we are here to converse with Christians, not to vicariously proselytize our unbelief. I implore you not to continue disrespecting us with short replies and musical lyrics.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.