AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D

[Emergence]

Even of "facts" you have to be convinced. When you "know" something to be a "fact", it is your conviction that it is correct. You have no way of ultimately proving the correctness or truth of any fact. I am as convinced as i can be - or in other words i am sure - that i interpreted the evidence right in the light of all my biological knowledge. Yet i allow for the possibility that i might be wrong. And that goes for everything i know, i think i know or that i am sure of at this point of my existence respectively.

[Operator_020]

BibleStudent,

Is this minuscule and off topic point what you really want to discuss?  I sure hope not.  Please move on to something germane to the conversation.

peace
020

[Whateverman]

[modbreak]

• Staff may intervene in threads and take action in order to ensure that the Rules are followed. This includes: managing (splitting, merging or moving) threads to ensure that topicality is maintained, removing inappropriate material from the forum, issuing instructions to forum members to adhere to the Rules, and in serious cases, issuing warnings or suspensions against recalcitrant forum members.
• Staff instructions are to be followed. In-thread discussion of staff instructions or any Moderator action relating to a member is not allowed. Flames and abuse directed at staff will not be tolerated. Impersonation of staff will not be tolerated.
  

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=5628.msg342020#new[/modbreak]

[screwtape]

BS,

Creationists often as for transitional fossils to fill in "gaps" in the evolutionary record.  And when scientists do, the creations giggle "well, now you have TWO gaps!"  I hope you can see how frustrating and dishonest that is. 

Emergence, who is a scientist by profession, has put forth a lot of time and effort to educate you.  Few people in the world get that opportunity.  As I see it, you have been ungrateful and disrespectful toward his generosity.  You should spend more time trying to understand what he is saying.

[BibleStudent]

Even of "facts" you have to be convinced. When you "know" something to be a "fact", it is your conviction that it is correct. You have no way of ultimately proving the correctness or truth of any fact. I am as convinced as i can be - or in other words i am sure - that i interpreted the evidence right in the light of all my biological knowledge. Yet i allow for the possibility that i might be wrong. And that goes for everything i know, i think i know or that i am sure of at this point of my existence respectively.

That’s fine. If you would have expressed your position that way in the first place, we would not even be where we are right now. You were presenting your case as though there was no room for your position to be potentially incorrect….that all of the holes in the controversy had been filled….and that it was a matter of fact whether one was a biologist or not.

I still think you changed direction late in the game, but I am not going to accuse you outright of dishonesty.

It's all said and done now so let's just shake and move on.

[BibleStudent]

Emergence, who is a scientist by profession, has put forth a lot of time and effort to educate you.  Few people in the world get that opportunity.  As I see it, you have been ungrateful and disrespectful toward his generosity.  You should spend more time trying to understand what he is saying.

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you there. If you read through our exchange, you'll see that I thanked him for his contributions and even expressed (more than once) my respect for his knowledge. Just because I do not agree with someone's position on an issue does not mean I have little or no respect for them.

[velkyn]

Primarily because this is not an area that I have really immersed myself in...yet. But, the limited material I have been exposed to seems to make some decent arguments for certain aspects of each belief. I think I had actually tried to argue for YEC at one time and quickly realized I was in a little over my head.

Understood, but this can be fixed.  I have yet to see any "decent arguments" for YEC so if you think there are any, I'd love to see them in another thread. 

[BibleStudent]

Understood, but this can be fixed.  I have yet to see any "decent arguments" for YEC so if you think there are any, I'd love to see them in another thread. 

I'd have to do so some "refreshing" before I could get involved in a discussion on that topic. I'm not opposed to it but I'd probably fall flat on my face if I engaged right now.

[sammylama]

Primarily because this is not an area that I have really immersed myself in...yet. But, the limited material I have been exposed to seems to make some decent arguments for certain aspects of each belief. I think I had actually tried to argue for YEC at one time and quickly realized I was in a little over my head.

Understood, but this can be fixed.  I have yet to see any "decent arguments" for YEC so if you think there are any, I'd love to see them in another thread. 

There's not even really a need to "immerse" oneself in this endeavor.  Here is a good article with loads of references: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm  It takes little time to get to the bottom of this issue.

[BibleStudent]

BibleStudent,

Is this minuscule and off topic point what you really want to discuss?  I sure hope not.  Please move on to something germane to the conversation.

peace
020

M20-

I believe we've resolved the matter but if you or Emergence require anything further, please let me know.

[screwtape]

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you there. If you read through our exchange, you'll see that I thanked him for his contributions and even expressed (more than once) my respect for his knowledge. Just because I do not agree with someone's position on an issue does not mean I have little or no respect for them.

Two things.  First, I did not say you did not respect him.  I said you were ungrateful and disrespectful of the effort.  On a personal basis you have been very polite and courteous.   

Second, I have a hard time understanding how you can respect a person's knowledge when you think that body of knowledge is flawed.    Astrologers have a great deal of "knowledge", but I do not respect that knowledge because I think it is baloney.  What you are saying is "I respect your knowledge, but I do not believe what you are telling me."

[Emergence]

I still think you changed direction late in the game, but I am not going to accuse you outright of dishonesty.

I am not satisfied with this. There's nothing that i would have had to define about my position earlier. I think it is very clear that any position a person takes or any knowledge someone holds can be wrong. I didn't change anything about my position. You just didn't understand it.

I don't need respect for my knowledge. Knowledge is something that just is. I also need no respect for the time i put into this thread. I didn't have to do it. But in the spirit of fairness i would expect you to concede the points our discussion was actually revolving about.

The first would be that Archaeopteryx as transitional form is not a "well documented fraud" and is not "rejected by the scientific community".
And the second point is that your assertion ""that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils" is wrong.

This has nothing to do with my conviction that evolution is a natural process and that Archaeopteryx evidentially is a fossil representative of an evolutionary transition. Nor has it something to do with your beliefs contradicting this option as supposable. This is just about your initial claims on what scientists have to say on the topic. And not even just some scientists, but all scientists.

A refusal to acknowledge or even just address the two points i - once again - spelled out above is what keeps me from shaking and moving on.

And because i really would like to have these points cleared up i'll type them again in bold and put as direct questions:

BibleStudent, do you acknowledge that Archaeopteryx is still regarded as transitional form by several[1] paleontologists and biologists in the present day?

Bible Student, do you admit that i could conclusively show that your statement "that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils" is wrong?

A simple yes or no to those questions will suffice. Thank you.

1.	I would think it is the majority, but since i do not want to send any more time on trying to show this, i'll be satisfied with a "several".

[BibleStudent]

A refusal to acknowledge or even just address the two points i - once again - spelled out above is what keeps me from shaking and moving on.

And because i really would like to have these points cleared up i'll type them again in bold and put as direct questions:

BibleStudent, do you acknowledge that Archaeopteryx is still regarded as transitional form by several[1] paleontologists and biologists in the present day?

1.	I would think it is the majority, but since i do not want to send any more time on trying to show this, i'll be satisfied with a "several".

Of course. Not sure where I said something to the contrary ?

Bible Student, do you admit that i could conclusively show that your statement "that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils" is wrong?

I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying here. This statement indicates my position that your assessment is not regarded as true by the entire body of science....or, said another way, that not every scientist shares your views. Did you think I was saying that the ENTIRE body of science would regard your statements as false ? Even I would consider me a wacko for asserting something like that.

[Emergence]

Did you think I was saying that the ENTIRE body of science would regard your statements as false ?

Yes, that is exactly what i thought you were saying. Correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't it gramatically be correct to asume this? After all you didn't say "that not the ENTIRE body of science does with [my] assessment of the subject fossils". <- That i would have understood correctly and have had no qualms with.

[Whateverman]

Did you think I was saying that the ENTIRE body of science would regard your statements as false ?

Yes, that is exactly what i thought you were saying. Correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't it gramatically be correct to asume this?

Meh.  The statement could be grammatically interpreted both ways.

[Ambassador Pony]

bm

[Emergence]

Meh.  The statement could be grammatically interpreted both ways.

As i said earlier: I'm no native speaker. From how i learned the language, i had only one understanding in mind. But i already vaguely suspected that something different might have been intended, that's why i kept citing this passage verbatim, which is something i do usually not do as you can see from my posting history. Since there's been no other attempt in formulating it, i assumed that i understood it correctly.

Sorry if that was wrong, but then again: Having witnessed - either as participant or as lurker - many of these discussions, it didn't seem absurd to understand the meaning as i did.