Tiernan;1599481 wrote:I'm banking on all the slutty fun chicks will be in Hell.

jmog;1599468 wrote:1. I changed my mind originally because of evidence that was fed to me by professors, not facts, but they were presented as so.
2. I investigated things on my own scientifically with no assumptions of which side was 'true' since I had once believed in evolution.
3. The evidence I found showed way too many holes in the theory, way too much 'bad' science being used as fact to spread a message that the scientists wanted to spread. Things like falsifying fossil records, modifying fossils to make it look like what they thought it should, knowingly "carbon dating" something to millions of years when carbon dating can't date anything past about 50,000 years, and the list goes on. The problem is, and this is true on both sides, TOO MANY scientists these days make a hypothesis and instead of proving or disproving said hypothesis (like the scientific method states) the prove the hypothesis as fact no matter what type of data they have to 'create' or 'modify'. Piltdown Man was modified as an ape jaw and human skull to fool the masses. Nebraska man was a freaking pig tooth ONLY that somehow turned into a whole "missing link" family picture that is still in text books today. That's right, a freaking pig tooth was all that was found, but it is now still in text books as a "Nebraska Man" whole family.

So, I ask you, who is more brainwashed? Kids growing up reading stories about Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (I could list others) that are known hoaxes, but are taught them as fact in their text books...or a man who evaluated both sides of the argument scientifically and logically and came to a conclusion/belief.

I have most definitely discussed my beliefs with any colleagues that are so inclined to ask. And no, no one laughs, because they are scientists too and know the holes in the theory and can see why someone would come to a different conclusion. Also, they are not assholes, like those that would ridicule someone for something they came to a believe in a logical fashion.

cruiser_96;1599487 wrote:Sleeper: to your point #2) I never stated that saying "I don't know" is what is childish. I stated that hiding behind as you bark at others is what is childish.

Humble and accurate would be recognizing, as jmog states, that we are all in the boat, not being a jerk about someone else's beliefs.

I Wear Pants;1599478 wrote:That doesn't happen.

Nebraska man was retracted when it was discovered that they had made a mistake. In fucking 1927. That's your basis for your belief that current scientific consensus is incorrect?

sleeper;1599489 wrote:I find it interesting that you go through all this research, including checking various studies and their flaws, while holding no such standard for accepting your current belief system which permeates far more than just your professional life. I agree there are likely scientists out there that 'cheat' and there is still a lot left to learn about evolution and the origin of life, but I'm confident that over time with enough studies following the scientific method that we will find the truth. Religion will remain with its current evidence(which is zero) from now until the end of time.

I absolutely think anyone who believes in a religious based god is brainwashed and delusional and the only way to 'solve' this is by being direct and aggressive to believers. I know I lived the first 16 years of my life as a delusional Catholic believer until one day I cured my ignorance and realized how big of a FRAUD religion is.

sleeper;1599489 wrote:
I absolutely think anyone who believes in a religious based god is brainwashed and delusional and the only way to 'solve' this is by being direct and aggressive to believers. I know I lived the first 16 years of my life as a delusional Catholic believer until one day I cured my ignorance and realized how big of a FRAUD religion is.

sleeper;1599494 wrote: You know you are wrong but don't want to admit it so instead you claim the high ground of 'WELL ITS MY BELIEF AND YOU CANNOT PROVE ME WRONG YOU JERK!' and I just sit here and shake my head. I have you and you delusional brethren figured out and I do not care if you think I'm being offensive or if you think I'm being a jerk. Reality is harsh and I prefer it that way.

Religion is designed to circumvent any logic and reason within the brain and therefore relies solely on fear tactics in order to keep the believers in line.

jmog;1599434 wrote:If you have truly graduated from college, as you say you have, you would know that just as much brainwashing goes on by many college professors as by religious institutions.

For your information, but you know I have stated this many times, there was a point that I fully believed in single cell to human evolution, was I brainwashed at that point too?

cruiser_96;1599517 wrote:Yes. The feeling I'm experiencing. You can't tell me what I'm experiencing. Your arrogance is shining through.

Either A) we created ourselves, B) nothing created us, or C) someone else created us.

jmog;1599536 wrote:Why would you assume I don't put the same rigor and look for the same holes in my current belief system? My belief system is constantly evolving as I uncover or understand new information.

You are making too many assumptions about me. If I went through a phase of fully believing in creation, to fully believing in evolution, to back to believing in creation, all while looking at evidences for both sides, your biased belief stemmed right to the idea that I had to ONLY look for holes in evolution and not into the other side.

jmog;1599535 wrote:I said I could go on.

Nebraska Man was a biased mistake. Piltdown Man was a deliberate fabrication, and it was in textbooks for over 40 years. I said I could keep going on the mistaken/fabricated "missing links". I only happened to name 2.

BoatShoes;1599548 wrote:You've said this before but I don't believe you when you say this. You've mentioned before that you were raised an evangelical christian and maybe you doubted your faith for a little bit but you never gave up fully believing in abiogenesis and evolution with common descent to revert back to young earth creationism. Especially because your arguments as to why you were convinced that evolution with common descent are so easily refutable. You were never investigating in good faith. Like a homocide detective with the inside scoop, you already "knew" who did it from the beginning. You just think pretending that you once were a genuine believer in evolution with common descent that it makes you more credible when you argue in favor of young earth creationism. It doesn't. Sorry.

sleeper;1599550 wrote:I would love to see the evidence and/or your logical progression into believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that god created everything. There is no evidence for creationism; the only thing you have to review a book that was written by people who wanted to indoctrinate and influence others into their own belief system. It may have some historical data that is accurate but I'd be shocked if history would leave out the 7 plagues or whatever from Egypt or the entire world being flooded for 40 days and 40 nights. I mean come on man.

BoatShoes;1599551 wrote:So you were once fervently committed to evolution with common descent and you gave up your fervently held beliefs based on a fallacy of composition and weren't really a committed evangelical christian looking to justify young earth creationism the whole time. Got it.

jmog;1599552 wrote:So your opinion is that I am lying, got it, thanks.

jmog;1599555 wrote:So, I list a few obvious fabrications/fallacies and that immediately means I never believed evolution? Come on man, use a little logic before you make huge leaps in assuming what my background/belief is based on.

BoatShoes;1599556 wrote:I wouldn't call it "lying" per se....probably more like "delusional". It's not a lie if you believe it after all, mirite? You probably think that you were a true believer in common descent but you never were. In any event I don't see how admitting that you reverted back to young earth creationism after leaving the secular empirical investigation of a university and using spurious arguments as justification helps your case.

BoatShoes;1599557 wrote:"Use a little logic" from the guy resting his whole case against evolution with common descent on the fallacy of composition. We've done this too many times for this to be worthwhile. You cannot shake the faith of a true believer and that is the logical progression Jmog. Anybody can see that you didn't really give up any true beliefs you had based upon such spurious reasoning. You had the inside scoop your whole life and you just needed to find a few "holes" in the case against your inside scoop and you moved on, content, "knowing" you had it right all along.

jmog;1599563 wrote:Fallacy of composition implies that I have applied the few forgeries to all fossils, and that I do not look at all fossils on their individual merit.

You are 100% incorrect once again, you either don't understand what fallacy of composition is, or you haven't really read. You are making major assumption leaps.

We got it, you think I am a huge liar, you can keep changing the words around to other things like "dilusional" and "spurious" but you are really just trying to use semantics so that it doesn't appear like you are calling me a liar. We get it. Move on.