Lets recap my first post today- It basically stated that the scientists are divided and that theories do not equal facts. With that being cleared up, how is that irrational? You agreed in your response that the scientists were divided but now you claim that I made an irrational statement. Hello.

Furthermore, you now state that my first statement(my opinion) sounded to you like I was trying to create an argument. As stated you basically did not refute my statement but instead made excuses for the scientists being divided by offering a sarcasitic remark. Thats rational?

In response to your last response- I have wasted enough time by defending my right to state an opinion(which obviously was a mistake). I am severally bored today but I have no interest at all in the theories that you believe to be facts in the last three pages of this thread.

I do not wish to debate this topic despite what you believe. You will most certainly twist this around somehow- it doesn't take long after meeting you to understand this fact. You like to debate, that is fine. I respectfully disagree with your views on this topic. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe.

I should have known better than to post an opinion in response to a statement made by someone who averages 40 plus posts a day on this site-lol. Lets agree to disagree . Peace.

I asked you to show proof that scientists are divided. I told you that it is quite possible for scientists to disagree on the precise meanings of their findings. This is an integral part of the formulation of scientific hypothesis and enables a workable theory to be created. I didn’t realize you were unclear on this process. Hopefully we can now move forward with no confusion.



Stating that the account of creation depicted in Genesis is factual or that it has supportive evidence is irrational unless you can prove otherwise.



Read my above statement CLEARLY.



This is true.




You have not offered anything for me to refute thus far.



Why not just use quotes.



If you have an opinion, you are quite free to state this position. I am also at liberty to dispute your claims. That is how an open debate forum works.



In other words, you are unwilling to read the thread and digest what has already been stated, yet you are perfectly willing to jump into the debate, post non related subject matter and arguments.



Okay.




I have NEVER met you. Stick to the facts here please.



Wonderful.

You are right. Go in peace.

Prove that this claim is unsubstantiated.



If that were the case, wouldn’t you have offered this information for us about 15 posts back?



The discrepancy is explained by apologetics as being a "later editorial insertion."



My world view includes none of this. I am taking the word of the apologetics in this case. They have offered a viable explanation to tell us why this contradiction exists.



Interesting you say "script" rather than "scripture." Also, I have heard from a few other Christians on forum that he DID in fact batize. Sigh.

Cher 'Eljay',

So far, your comments have shown clear confusion between
... YOUR personnal opinion,
... or anyone else's for that matter,
... including creationists who might happen to be scientists,

AND,

... the POSITION OF THE SCIENCE as expressed by the few whom are publicly recognized as the 'CREDIBLE EXPERTS' representing the scientific community position, and the CREDIBLE EXPERTS from the creationist side, presenting or NOT PRESENTING scientifically accepted or newly acceptable proof (if there were such), about their respextive claims in this 'evo-crea' debate.

That was the point of my earlier post 'eljay', that I repeat here. It will be kind of difficult to explore this further if you keep missing the point altogether.

Whatever you or I would have to say about our personnal research, our personnal diplomas and our personnal convictions, would be totally impertinent and missing the point of this exchange altogether.

You see 'ELJAY', neither you nor I have been invited to present the position 'for' or 'against' the evolution and creation sides in front of the numerous judicial hearings that have taken place in the past couple of decades (past hundred years, understandably we couldn't have anyway).

Some people in both camps are publically credible and known out there as the one's representing their respective camp.

They are the ones whom are instrumental in forging the infamous 'World View' you refer to often lately, or generally accepted consensus, giving us, mere mortals, a particular reality, or THE world view against which all other world views are measured, whether one agrees with it or not.

And you see 'Eljay',
... when it comes to your legitimate right to 'believe' in the 'bible-inerrant' notions of creationism,
... and however much you might not agree with the theory of evolution, because YOU are not personnally convinced with the evidence of this particular 'world view',
... the scientific and judicial experts on the other hand, after more than 100 years of hearings, where claims against evolution have been presented, and yet none of these CREATIONIST CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT MIGHT HAVE CAST AS MUCH OF A SHADOW ON THE PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Ironically, fundamentalist-creationists are reinforcing the reality, or 'Meta World View' of the Theory of Evolution with their repeated and endlessly unsubstantiated claims:
'... that evolution is false!!! ...'

Very much like, '... what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger ...' (an evolution based evidence. This evolution reality is everywhere!!!)

So that leaves us with a false debate so far, where false claims have been made and new unsubstantiated claims are peeking, without ever impacting reality,

FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES :

... where 'creationism' has been judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SUPREME COURT,

OR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE

... which has NEVER been presented with any form of testable proof that would invalidate the theory of evolution.

The fundamentalists-creationists may never quit.

That is their constitutionally protected freeomof religion and freedom of speech privilege.

But the debate has been relegated to a stricly 'personnal belief' arena.

Whether yours, mine or the creationist whom happens to hold a science degree, personnal beliefs or opinions alone, whatever the mass, will never change the 'Meta World View' or consensus on reality.

The Meta World View once was that we existed on an earth centric universe, again out of a bible-inerrancy fundamentalist perspective.

Of course the reality of our universe(s) is not bible-inerrant today, in spite the legitimate belief of some die-hards.

So it is with Evolution. The Meta World View or reality we live within today is clearly 'evolutionary', in spite of a few 'bible-innerant' believers, whom hold onto a 'bible-inerrant human being centric' exclusive subordinated or junior world view, that is both scientifcally unproven, and judicially unconstitutional (creationism in schools).

Is the point clearer with this additionnal information 'ELjay'?

I would appreciate if you could respond to the point made here, in a specific manner:

'... credible expert opinion, and scientifically accepted theories-proof,
... shaping judicial reality and impacting a 'meta world view', or consensus on reality,
... as opposed to personnal opinions and beliefs impacting only one's view, but not the consensus on reality.'

0,00262% of the world's christian population, arguing as lound as they could,
... WILL NOT A WORLD REALITY GIVE!!!

He is quick to figure out.....lol

This claim from creationists that would have scientists split up on the validity of factual foundation of the theory of evolution, is a profoundly misleading one.

The scientific community is as unanimous as can be with respect to the factual validity of the theory of evolution. More and more so, if that can be.

Often times in science, there can be a split in the scientific schools of thought regarding certain emerging propositions.

But to try and imply any form of an official split within the scientific community, when it comes to the theory of evolution, is just about as inconceivable as suggesting that gravity is BS and in deep crisis in the world of science.

Throwing such 'convenient' claim, 'scientists are split', which accomodates a personal faith based position, is done so strictly to confuse the issue.

People, whether they are taxi drivers, teachers, store owners or scientists, WILL HAVE PERSONAL OPINIONS.

To suggest that a faith based personal opinion should have any form of credibility in attacking the integrity of a 'proven' scientific theory is deceitful.

To keep doing it without ever providing a scientific counter argument, is further deceptive,
... and goes squarely against basic human intelligence that the god you might refer to, might have given us.

A personal opinion, even when it is from a scientist, means nothing in front of the scientific community consensus.

Not that scientific consensus couldn't change, but if all you got is a faith based personal opinion, hoping it will transform the consensus, you are truly acting on FAITH, SCIENTIST OR OTHERWISE.

Scientists are humans beings. And human beings will always have personal opinions.

Faith based personal opinions, especially from scientists, should not be confused with scientific consensus!!!

If those scientists still wish to make a claim that might alter the existing scientific consensus with respect to the theory of evolution,
... let them put their faith based personal opinion aside,
... and let them demonstrate their scientific claim from a scientific perspective to scientists peers.

So far, no scientist, christian, creationist, apologetist, fundamentalist or otherwise has come forth with any scientific argumentation for their claim.

Conclusion???

Elementary Watson!

Who or what are you talking about?

No Maam-that Gary guy did not bring it up- YOU my dear Krimsa brought it up- to use one of your quotes "You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread.".

You brought it up and I posted a response.

To recap Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit NOT water. One of the verses in John that you quoted is talking only of baptism by water(which Jesus did not perform) and the other is speaking of two different types of baptism.

As I stated if Peter was in the river performing a baptism of water while Jesus was performing a baptism of the Holy Spirit "while they tarried", then Jesus was performing baptisms with his disciples. I don't expect you to understand or agree- I am posting this in case a babe in Christ is reading this thread and is confused.

This was your original quote taken from this very thread when you ORIGIONALLY bought up this off topic discussion;

Gary said:




Krimsa John 4:2 States that Jesus baptized his disciples, it does not state that he did not perform any baptisms. You have taken this scripture out of context.

Bravo!

krimsa said:



Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary?

The entire Bible is filled with fibs, big heapin' helpin' loads of ........... fib!

"But that is just a story, it's not meant to be taken literally. . ."

A passage in the next chapter of the Gospel of John (John 4:1-4) mentions both that Jesus baptized and did not baptize. Many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion.

HELLO- that is your quote and my reply! In order for me to reply to a quote the quote has to exist. What is so hard to understand here? You stated this what you call OFF TOPIC contradiction on THE FIRST PAGE of this thread- I didn't join until like the 25th page-HELLO

And stop with the off topic crap, I see where you are going but the Mingle administrators aren't stupid.

Show me a fib Krimsa. You are crap starter plain and simple. You engage in character and creditbility assassination, even when it is unwarranted, at every opportunity and you dare judge me. Get a life.

What are you talking about? This was stated way at the beginning of the thread. So you go and quote it and interrupt during a debate about evolution that was going on like 15 pages (or more later.) What I quoted was your interruption of that debate which was already in progress and ON TOPIC. I don’t understand your second comment at all. You were the one that interjected non related subject matter. Are you implying I did something wrong? I should report you right now.

You told a fib when you stated that I was somehow responsible for interjecting this into the discussion about evolution when I clearly posted where you had interrupted the debate with it.