Creationists - Page 5

On January 20 2011 09:15 Tony Campolo wrote:
I forgot to add... The quote should more appropriately be applied to Creationists. For those who don't believe in evolution - no proof will suffice. My offer still stands that if any Creationists would like an e-book copy of Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth (his latest book on evolution) feel free to PM me your e-mail address. In my experience though, Christians will rarely read anything on science that is not written by a Christian author (who usually has no scientific background). The same applies for when trying to argue against other religions - they are quick to state that they know what other religions (such as Buddhism or Islam) believe and why they're wrong, all whilst never having read a single book by their adherents' authors - instead prefering to rely on the word of Christian authors writing on such topics.

On January 20 2011 05:19 Chef wrote:

Is it okay for me to think it's ironic when someone trying to paint themselves as insightful starts using Freudian psychology? Even getting beyond this 'defence mechanism' silliness, even just using the word 'natural' like that is offensive. What do you know about what's 'natural' for human beings? Perhaps, maybe, some people just don't want to believe random crap they're told over the internet, regardless of how much proof either side claims to have (but of course can't call upon due to the limitations of online debate).

There are some topics which can be argued legitimately over the internet. There are many which cannot. When you take a really broad, general topic like 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION' you invite yourself to an argument which cannot end. I mean, think about if you wrote an essay on 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION.' It'd be about 50 million pages long. That's why you're supposed to narrow down your thesis to something that is specific enough for you to do it justice within the constraints of your medium.