the earth

[Dark Virtue]

Eh?

That is nonsensical.

Most Christians have no desire to even enterain the notion that they could possibly be wrong. Admitting they could be wrong undermines the very nature of God, and God can't be wrong, can he?

How can you say that Christians don't expect others to be willing to admit they're wrong?

 

[Avesther]

do you bevle all the stuff they are saying that the earth is arond 4.2 billyin years old and we evaled from apes and arangatanes?

Well, this thread has been successfully derailed. Maybe its time to split the thread or close the thread.

 

[Goose62]

Most Christians have no desire to even enterain the notion that they could possibly be wrong. Admitting they could be wrong undermines the very nature of God, and God can't be wrong, can he?

I think what he's saying is that before we were Christians, we had to come to the notion that our ways were wrong and we were sinners - which made us go against our principles at that time, no matter how big of a degree turn it was.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I think what he's saying is that before we were Christians, we had to come to the notion that our ways were wrong and we were sinners - which made us go against our principles at that time, no matter how big of a degree turn it was.

BINGO

The second half of that is that since Christians feel it's their duty to preach the gospel unto everyone, they are expecting others to do something they aren't willing to do...that is, admit that their personal outlook could be flawed.

 

[ChickenSoup]

How can you say that Christians don't expect others to be willing to admit they're wrong?

Easily. It is in the nature of a human being to think he is right. I'm not going to say that *everyone* is that way, but a lot of people are. *sits down*

 

[Avesther]

BINGO

The second half of that is that since Christians feel it's their duty to preach the gospel unto everyone, they are expecting others to do something they aren't willing to do...that is, admit that their personal outlook could be flawed.

I love accusations and finger pointing. See, when you point your finger, you generally curl three of your own fingers to point back at you. You are as guilty as those you accuse, maybe even more so because those who do the accusing are often trying to shift the focus off themselves by getting the accused to defend themselves.

Goose62 has satisfactorly address your question. Now the back to you, are you simply unwilling to accept it, or do you keep bringing up the same accusation just to be arguementative?

 

[Dark Virtue]

I love accusations and finger pointing. See, when you point your finger, you generally curl three of your own fingers to point back at you. You are as guilty as those you accuse, maybe even more so because those who do the accusing are often trying to shift the focus off themselves by getting the accused to defend themselves.

How do I shift the focus.

Have I not, on several occasions, admitted that I am more than willing to believe in God if I receive proof of his existence? Let me rephrase that, so there is no misunderstanding. At this point in time, I have nothing to lead me to believe in the existence of God, just like I have nothing to lead me to believe in the nonexistence of God. I am open to either one of those possibilities, meaning, that upon further information, my current stance would be rendered moot. More to the point, it would be rendered inaccurate...wrong.

So please, tell me where you believe I am being hypocritical.

Now, back to my point. Christians believe it is their God given right, nay, their duty, to preach God's word, to convert the unbelievers. Correct? In doing so, you are asking others to question their beliefs and admit that they could be wrong. Correct? Up to this point, there's nothing wrong with this. However, if that unbeliever were to ask (as I have done when this situation arises) of the Christian believes THEIR outlook could be incorrect, that there could be an inkling, a remote possibility, that they could be wrong about their beliefs, the answer is almost always the same: not only are they unwilling to admit that they are wrong, they are unwilling to admit to even the merest possibility that they could be wrong.

Explain to me how that is fair. If the Christian isn't willing to admit they could be wrong, WHY do they expect other people to do the same?

Goose62 has satisfactorly address your question. Now the back to you, are you simply unwilling to accept it, or do you keep bringing up the same accusation just to be arguementative?

I already agreed with what Goose said, so I don't understand the problem.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Easily. It is in the nature of a human being to think he is right. I'm not going to say that *everyone* is that way, but a lot of people are. *sits down*

While I agree with you, you didn't address what you quoted me on.

I agree that it's the nature of man to believe he is right. It's hard to admit when you're wrong. But look at what you quoted:

How can you say that Christians don't expect others to be willing to admit they're wrong?

I am talking about expecting something of others that you aren't willing to do yourself.

Let me ask you point blank CS: Do you believe that you could be wrong about your faith, God, the bible, Christianity? Do you believe a remote possibility exists that your outlook is wrong?

 

[Genesis1315]

Christians believe it is their God given right, nay, their duty, to preach God's word, to convert the unbelievers.

yes


and since we are very off topic, let me ask this....

Why is it that topics on evolution and the beginnings of the world end up in other thread and this one veers off in a direction that would work well in another thread.hhhmmmm. Must ponder this while I come up with an answer as to why the earth is not billions of years old......

Gen

 

[Avesther]

So please, tell me where you believe I am being hypocritical.

actually, I am going to call you hypocritical. And I'll tell you why:

Have I not, on several occasions, admitted that I am more than willing to believe in God if I receive proof of his existence?

This is not admitance of the possibility of being wrong. This is saying, hey, proof me wrong, and I'll say you are right. This is the standard you apply to yourself, that is, without proof that define as acceptable, you consider yourself in the right.

Now compare that to this:

If the Christian isn't willing to admit they could be wrong, WHY do they expect other people to do the same?

This is, admit that you could be wrong, without proof of this possibility. This is the standard you hold Christians to, that is, take it on faith that you could be wrong while you provide no proof (that would be acceptable to us) of this possibility.


Here's the thing; I'm going to hold you to your standard for yourself. While you want proof that there is a God, proof that is so far beyond the requirement of Faith, that nobody would have any doubt before you are willing (non-commital are you) to believe in God, I'll demand the same level of proof that God doesn't exist. That is, I want proof that is so far beyond doubt that the faith of the devout itself is shaken to its knees that there is no God, and should you provide it, I'll be willing (just as non-commital as you are) to believe there is no God.

 

[Avesther]

Must ponder this while I come up with an answer as to why the earth is not billions of years old......

This has already been dealt with in the thread Gen. The conclusion (as accepted by both Eon and DV by virtue of their lack of counter arguements) stand as: Because science is unable to predict the conditions of any sample used in dating methods, the resulting dates are seriously suspect. A date of 200 million years could just as easily be in reality, 5,000 years old. Instead of showing a willingness that their reliance on the science behind dating methods could be tenious at best, they have decided to draw out on tangents, attacking articles of faith instead of defending their faith and reliance on the answers as provided by science.

 

[Dark Virtue]

yes


and since we are very off topic, let me ask this....

Why is it that topics on evolution and the beginnings of the world end up in other thread and this one veers off in a direction that would work well in another thread.hhhmmmm.

Quick! Name one thread that is 10+ pages long and stayed on topic!

Must ponder this while I come up with an answer as to why the earth is not billions of years old......

Gen

Oooh, I can't wait

 

[Genesis1315]

This has already been dealt with in the thread Gen. The conclusion (as accepted by both Eon and DV by virtue of their lack of counter arguements) stand as:

This was just a less that direct attempt to turn things back around

and DV - ummmm none

 

[Dark Virtue]

This has already been dealt with in the thread Gen. The conclusion (as accepted by both Eon and DV by virtue of their lack of counter arguements) stand as: Because science is unable to predict the conditions of any sample used in dating methods, the resulting dates are seriously suspect. A date of 200 million years could just as easily be in reality, 5,000 years old. Instead of showing a willingness that their reliance on the science behind dating methods could be tenious at best, they have decided to draw out on tangents, attacking articles of faith instead of defending their faith and reliance on the answers as provided by science.

Should I open my mouth wider so you can shove more words into them?

As I've said before (but obviously not loud enough to get your attention) is that while our dating techniques work to a less than desireable degree, they aren't perfect. I've asked, but you've refused to answer a very important question: if you disagree with these dating methods, what do you suggest we do? Guess? Ignore dating whatsoever? Without using these flawed dating techniques, how will we ever learn new ones?

These techniques are as good as we can get at this present time.

 

[[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff]

In the 1400's, people believed that an imbalance of "humours" were the cause of medical maladies, based on the science of the time. The fact that the theory was the best science available didn't make that science any more accurate.

Are you saying we should use methods and figures that we know have a high probability of being inaccurate to form conclusions?

 

[DarthDapor]

Without using these flawed dating techniques, how will we ever learn new ones?

Exactly, so first the people who run these tests must admit their techniques are wrong, then they would hov to learn why their dating techniques don't work. However as you said these techniques are flawed, so I am going to assume that an accurate dating technique will not come up in my life time.

 

[Eon]

It's entirely likely that my throat grew so hoarse from repeating myself that I was prevented from pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.

That or I was stricken dumb with disbelief.

I'll search out that thread and post the inevitable counter argument - which is that Young Earth science is much akin to claiming that your tapemeasure isn't accurate to the nanometer, therefore that carpark could just as easily be 6m across as 60m.

 

[Dark Virtue]

In the 1400's, people believed that an imbalance of "humours" were the cause of medical maladies, based on the science of the time. The fact that the theory was the best science available didn't make that science any more accurate.

Are you saying we should use methods and figures that we know have a high probability of being inaccurate to form conclusions?

YES!

How else would we learn? How else would we become more accurate?

Would you mind giving me a scientific alternative that somehow doesn't build upon errors and mistakes?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Exactly, so first the people who run these tests must admit their techniques are wrong, then they would hov to learn why their dating techniques don't work. However as you said these techniques are flawed, so I am going to assume that an accurate dating technique will not come up in my life time.

Well we all know what happens we when assume.

(BTW, misspelling words on purpose is not kewl or 1337)

Now, the first part of your post is highly jaded...and flat out wrong.

The first people that run an experiment do so because they MIGHT be correct. Their techniques may be wrong, but what's the point in performing an experiment with a negative attitude? Even if the techniques are wrong, there is much to be learned in the process. You see, it isn't always about the end result.

 

[DarthDapor]

It's entirely likely that my throat grew so hoarse from repeating myself that I was prevented from pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.

That or I was stricken dumb with disbelief.

Yeah definitly that second one! By the way, why is it wrong to assume. Also like to point out that there is freedom of speech in america, and I figure that this place is in america. So I hov a right to spell words the way I want, when I want, where I want, and you con't stop me!