Logical and Open-minded Discussion

[Byblos]

Hmmm, I wonder why your soo bothered by my post...

I said nothing about going in and assuming I'm right. If you read my post you would see I commented on people who post false statements suporting their view.

I was not bothered by your post. I just made fun of it.

Well you sure made a big assumption about me, with just one post. When my post didn't in any insinuate that I'm always right. Like I said before I was remarking on people ignoring well supported facts in order to support their own personal beliefs.

How about we dispense with the generalizations and talk specifics. First, welcome to the board, Mr. Burns.

Is there a specific thread or topic that bothered you in particular? (without naming names, if you're uncomfortable with that). What topics would you like to discuss? I believe I read somewhere that you are here to educate others in certain subjects. Could you give us a quick background check and what subjects in which you can be of help? We're always open to learning. Hope you stick around.

There isn't a specific thread in particular, although I frequent the God and Science forum the most.

I'll post a few recent example.

Mystical wrote:
"Why don't clones live? Scientifically? Spiritually? Maybe they don't have souls? Anyone ever think about this?"

Didn't know that some things do use cloning successfully (all-female salamander species, etc.)

Jbuza wrote:
"What is your explanation for the singularity of the snake as a land animal? IT's not that adaptive to not have legs. Everything else on land has legs."

Jbuza wrote:
"Well How could I be mistaken enyone can palinly see those look nothing like snakes. Nope not a thing in common. Internally they are very similar to snakes."

Jbuza wrote:
"I have already pointed out why, "ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangements" don't work any more perfectly to distinguish between snakes and lizards than crawling around on the belly does."


Not true - ex. legless lizards, which are found in the US. A host of features that distinguish legless lizards from snakes such as ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangement, among others.

Ark~Magic wrote:
"There are animals that have been around for years like dogs, cats, etc., and they have always been what they are, even in the most indifferent forms. Like with fish, the fishes are still fishes. The idea of them even transcending into non-sea creatures is ridiculous and is lacking in both science and philosophy."

So dogs haven't changed during recorded history with selective breeding? He responded with "you missed what he hell I was trying to say"" rather than what he should have said, which was "I was wrong"


Although I haven't seen this in a while on here it really bothers me is people saying that evolutionists claim we came from "monkeys." Totally false... First of all no we don't, no where does it say that. Second of all your thinking apes, we have the closest genetic similarity to apes, not monkeys. Which we don't come from either. Big difference between a ape and monkey.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. From what I can see, your contentions are with the science, not the theology threads.

I must admit, discussions on this site, scientific or religious in nature, tend to be very heated debates, quite often without a clear winner/loser outcome.

To suggest that someone should admit they're wrong is a rather tall demand. People in general don't like to do that. But they often do in the form of clarifying their position, particularly if it was taken out of context, as from what I see Ark-Magic was attempting to do.

A friendly suggestion to you: instead of criticizing the way people respond right off the bat, why don't you offer your opinion on a subject, back it up with references, then refute any erroneous answers. In other words, start off with an opinion then criticize, not the other way around.

[Mystical]

Well that could very well be what you see. But the high majority of my comments are regarding the God and Science Forum.

Really? I kind of figured that...but you were trying so hard to be so clandestine. Should of just said it. My comments are regarding non-Christians who come here and post, but I'm sure you knew that.

A person doesn't have to constantly look up info..., but you can't expect someone to take your word on everything you say.

When you ask for proof, you are asking for info., which means you want evidence, which means things have to be looked up.

If you going to make a bold statement you better be prepared to back it up.

Yikes! You're getting a little scary. I thought you weren't forcing any to look up info. That statement was pretty threatening.

It's all about the proof...

Nope, it's all about the truth.

Besides, if they were really knowledgable in what they are arguing about then it shouldn't take them much time to back up their statements with references.

Jeez, make up your mind, do you want people looking stuff up or not? Anyways, this last statement is simply not true. Many people have much knowledge of many things, and don't have the sources to back that knowledge up; not because the sources don't exist, but because it's really annoying to remember where they came from and finding things on the net can be very time consuming. What you want is a wrestling match. Show me the source...if you can't, you're wrong. Alot of times, that just simply means you aren't listening. You miss so much when you aren't listening. I don't think you realize what you're missing.

[Mystical]

P.S.

You quoted my 'clones' thread. I'm glad. No one really took it seriously. I do. Do you have a serious answer? Can you answer any of it for me? You don't need to give me proof. I just want to know what you think and maybe why.

[Mr._Burns]

I was not bothered by your post. I just made fun of it.

Well you sure made a big assumption about me, with just one post. When my post didn't in any insinuate that I'm always right. Like I said before I was remarking on people ignoring well supported facts in order to support their own personal beliefs.

How about we dispense with the generalizations and talk specifics. First, welcome to the board, Mr. Burns.

Is there a specific thread or topic that bothered you in particular? (without naming names, if you're uncomfortable with that). What topics would you like to discuss? I believe I read somewhere that you are here to educate others in certain subjects. Could you give us a quick background check and what subjects in which you can be of help? We're always open to learning. Hope you stick around.

There isn't a specific thread in particular, although I frequent the God and Science forum the most.

I'll post a few recent example.

Mystical wrote:
"Why don't clones live? Scientifically? Spiritually? Maybe they don't have souls? Anyone ever think about this?"

Didn't know that some things do use cloning successfully (all-female salamander species, etc.)

Jbuza wrote:
"What is your explanation for the singularity of the snake as a land animal? IT's not that adaptive to not have legs. Everything else on land has legs."

Jbuza wrote:
"Well How could I be mistaken enyone can palinly see those look nothing like snakes. Nope not a thing in common. Internally they are very similar to snakes."

Jbuza wrote:
"I have already pointed out why, "ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangements" don't work any more perfectly to distinguish between snakes and lizards than crawling around on the belly does."


Not true - ex. legless lizards, which are found in the US. A host of features that distinguish legless lizards from snakes such as ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangement, among others.

Ark~Magic wrote:
"There are animals that have been around for years like dogs, cats, etc., and they have always been what they are, even in the most indifferent forms. Like with fish, the fishes are still fishes. The idea of them even transcending into non-sea creatures is ridiculous and is lacking in both science and philosophy."

So dogs haven't changed during recorded history with selective breeding? He responded with "you missed what he hell I was trying to say"" rather than what he should have said, which was "I was wrong"


Although I haven't seen this in a while on here it really bothers me is people saying that evolutionists claim we came from "monkeys." Totally false... First of all no we don't, no where does it say that. Second of all your thinking apes, we have the closest genetic similarity to apes, not monkeys. Which we don't come from either. Big difference between a ape and monkey.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. From what I can see, your contentions are with the science, not the theology threads.

I must admit, discussions on this site, scientific or religious in nature, tend to be very heated debates, quite often without a clear winner/loser outcome.

To suggest that someone should admit they're wrong is a rather tall demand. People in general don't like to do that. But they often do in the form of clarifying their position, particularly if it was taken out of context, as from what I see Ark-Magic was attempting to do.

A friendly suggestion to you: instead of criticizing the way people respond right off the bat, why don't you offer your opinion on a subject, back it up with references, then refute any erroneous answers. In other words, start off with an opinion then criticize, not the other way around.

To suggest someone admit their wrong is a tall order. But its better than that person dancing the truth. Its very easy for someone to said they were misunderstood, I didn't clarify enough, or you didn't understand what I'm saying. Theres so many ways people dance around their mistakes so they don't look bad, and some people here constantly display their rhythm.

I didn't want to start off causing a heated issue. I believed it was best to bring up the issue first to catch peoples attention, then gives examples if necessary. Because if I would of done that I'm sure I would have been labeled an atheist right away since I 'm a person of science. Like I said in my origional statement, I see the one sided way people are treated here. To start off that way would only give negative reactions to my post right away.

[Mr._Burns]

Quote:
Well that could very well be what you see. But the high majority of my comments are regarding the God and Science Forum.


Really? I kind of figured that...but you were trying so hard to be so clandestine. Should of just said it. My comments are regarding non-Christians who come here and post, but I'm sure you knew that.

Hmmm, I didn't know I was not a christian. Don't know how you were able to come to that conclusion, but whatever.

Quote:
A person doesn't have to constantly look up info..., but you can't expect someone to take your word on everything you say.


When you ask for proof, you are asking for info., which means you want evidence, which means things have to be looked up.

Its one thing to give info on a topic, its another to give proof to back that up. Do you believe everything you read?

Quote:
If you going to make a bold statement you better be prepared to back it up.


Yikes! You're getting a little scary. I thought you weren't forcing any to look up info. That statement was pretty threatening.

I'm not forcing anyone, but how are you expected to be taken seriously if you can't back up your claims? Science is constantly asked to prove their claims. Is it bad to expected the same in return?

Threatening? Why do you feel threatened? Your just being asked to prove your view, not just state it.

Quote:
It's all about the proof...

Nope, it's all about the truth.

Yes its all about the truth, which is given by providing proof.

Quote:
Besides, if they were really knowledgable in what they are arguing about then it shouldn't take them much time to back up their statements with references.


Jeez, make up your mind, do you want people looking stuff up or not? Anyways, this last statement is simply not true. Many people have much knowledge of many things, and don't have the sources to back that knowledge up; not because the sources don't exist, but because it's really annoying to remember where they came from and finding things on the net can be very time consuming. What you want is a wrestling match. Show me the source...if you can't, you're wrong. Alot of times, that just simply means you aren't listening. You miss so much when you aren't listening. I don't think you realize what you're missing.

So you don't like being held to a high standard? Should anyway just be allowed to may any statement and have their word taken on it? Don't expect that from me and the other people in science because you sure don't expect that from us.

Alot of times, that just simply means you aren't listening. You miss so much when you aren't listening. I don't think you realize what you're missing.

I am listening and what I hear is pathetic. Sorry you don't like being held to a standard above that of elementary school.

[Mr._Burns]

P.S.

You quoted my 'clones' thread. I'm glad. No one really took it seriously. I do. Do you have a serious answer? Can you answer any of it for me? You don't need to give me proof. I just want to know what you think and maybe why.

I'll gladly reply to this later for I have little time right now.

[Byblos]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. From what I can see, your contentions are with the science, not the theology threads.

I must admit, discussions on this site, scientific or religious in nature, tend to be very heated debates, quite often without a clear winner/loser outcome.

To suggest that someone should admit they're wrong is a rather tall demand. People in general don't like to do that. But they often do in the form of clarifying their position, particularly if it was taken out of context, as from what I see Ark-Magic was attempting to do.

A friendly suggestion to you: instead of criticizing the way people respond right off the bat, why don't you offer your opinion on a subject, back it up with references, then refute any erroneous answers. In other words, start off with an opinion then criticize, not the other way around.

To suggest someone admit their wrong is a tall order. But its better than that person dancing the truth. Its very easy for someone to said they were misunderstood, I didn't clarify enough, or you didn't understand what I'm saying. Theres so many ways people dance around their mistakes so they don't look bad, and some people here constantly display their rhythm.

I didn't want to start off causing a heated issue. I believed it was best to bring up the issue first to catch peoples attention, then gives examples if necessary. Because if I would of done that I'm sure I would have been labeled an atheist right away since I 'm a person of science. Like I said in my origional statement, I see the one sided way people are treated here. To start off that way would only give negative reactions to my post right away.

Yet you've succeded in doing exactly what you did not set out to do; that being causing a heated debate. The exception is that this debate is about nothing.

You seem to think if you're a person of science that you will be judged as an atheist. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly on this site. It is built on the very premise that Godandscience are completely complementary, not mutually exclusive.

You also seem to be very pationate about science so once again, I would suggest that you direct your energy towards constructive scientific debates rather than mindless bickering. I, for one, am looking forward to your insights (I have yet to see any).

[August]

Yes its all about the truth, which is given by providing proof.

Are you saying that showing physical proof is the only way to know the truth?

[Mr._Burns]

Yet you've succeded in doing exactly what you did not set out to do; that being causing a heated debate. The exception is that this debate is about nothing.

You seem to think if you're a person of science that you will be judged as an atheist. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly on this site. It is built on the very premise that Godandscience are completely complementary, not mutually exclusive.

You also seem to be very pationate about science so once again, I would suggest that you direct your energy towards constructive scientific debates rather than mindless bickering. I, for one, am looking forward to your insights (I have yet to see any).

Well this wasn't a heated issue at first. It only became heated recently when asked for examples that I provided. The comments directed back toward me made it become heated. This topic could of been discussed without giving specific examples.

Athiesm on here isn't directed toward science? I could have missed one, but most I have seen have been labeled one.

Mindless bickering? If raising an issue on credability mindless bickering? Or perhaps I should just take your word on it because thats what you expect. Never mind backing up your claims with proof, because if someone says so its got to be true. Right?

You haven't seen my insights because this topic was the first time I have posted on here. Haven't really seen a need to until now. Not sure how much I will participate after this.
I frequent a message forum on Evolution & Science where you can say what you want, but it better be factual and you better be able to back it up with references. If not your gone. You can discuss with out having to list references, but if you make a statement revolving around proof you need references.
It goes to credability. People regarding evolution are always asked for proof. Is it to much to ask to expect the same in return?

[Mr._Burns]

Yes its all about the truth, which is given by providing proof.

Are you saying that showing physical proof is the only way to know the truth?

Not the actual physical object. Just a reference from a credable source that you got your info from.

[Byblos]

Yet you've succeded in doing exactly what you did not set out to do; that being causing a heated debate. The exception is that this debate is about nothing.

You seem to think if you're a person of science that you will be judged as an atheist. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly on this site. It is built on the very premise that Godandscience are completely complementary, not mutually exclusive.

You also seem to be very pationate about science so once again, I would suggest that you direct your energy towards constructive scientific debates rather than mindless bickering. I, for one, am looking forward to your insights (I have yet to see any).

Well this wasn't a heated issue at first. It only became heated recently when asked for examples that I provided. The comments directed back toward me made it become heated. This topic could of been discussed without giving specific examples.

Athiesm on here isn't directed toward science? I could have missed one, but most I have seen have been labeled one.

Mindless bickering? If raising an issue on credability mindless bickering? Or perhaps I should just take your word on it because thats what you expect. Never mind backing up your claims with proof, because if someone says so its got to be true. Right?

You haven't seen my insights because this topic was the first time I have posted on here. Haven't really seen a need to until now. Not sure how much I will participate after this.
I frequent a message forum on Evolution & Science where you can say what you want, but it better be factual and you better be able to back it up with references. If not your gone. You can discuss with out having to list references, but if you make a statement revolving around proof you need references.
It goes to credability. People regarding evolution are always asked for proof. Is it to much to ask to expect the same in return?

Mr. Burns, you seem to be on the defensive from the get go. You missed the point I was trying to make. I am merely suggesting that you lead by example. Instead of complaining, show us what you've got.

[Mystical]

Hmm, I didn't know I was not a christian. Don't know how you were able to come to that conclusion, but whatever.

I didn't say you weren't Christian. I haven't reached any conclusion about you at all. Don't know how you came up with that. Whatever.

Do you believe everything you read?

No. Do you? I think the point here is that you denied my reasoning for frustration levels: commentors feeling frustration at having to repeatedly post, by stating, "People aren't being forced to post back-up." Then, you continue to demand back-up information. Getting back-up information is okay, but some people are going to be frustrated at having to provide it repeatedly, and feeling pressured to do so immediately. That's all...nothing to get heated about.

I'm not forcing anyone, but how are you expected to be taken seriously if you can't back up your claims?

I think you haven't understood what I've been saying. There is plenty of proof to back-up the theological claims made on this site, but people get frustrated at having to look stuff up repeatedly and at having to do so for posters who urge an immediate response.

Yes its all about the truth, which is given by providing proof.

Again, there is proof. Remember, though, listening is key.

So you don't like being held to a high standard? Should anyway just be allowed to may any statement and have their word taken on it?

Mr. Burns, I think you're getting too upset. You know how I know that? You haven't listened to anything I've said, because what I said wasn't anything close to that.

I am listening and what I hear is pathetic.

If you listen to everyone else as pathetically as you've listened to me, I can understand why you're so frustrated. But, listening is a skill we learn way back in elementary school. Time for review?

P.S. Can't wait to hear from you on the clone issue!

[Believer]

Mr._Burns, I have a simple question regarding a paragraph from your first post:

Now sure how this post will be taken since I have seen many posts deleted and members banned. I hope the members and the admins will take this post with the openness and maturity they say they have.

My question is, since members on this forum, if banned, don't show a status of being banned, how do you know they are? I will not ask about posts being deleted, they are, but the banning issue brought high attention to me. I would assume you would know this if you are a registrant on atheist forums that members from there, register here, and get banned for not obeying forum guidelines, and then report back to the atheist forums and bring "issues" up like, "Christianity is a myth, there is no God, it is a hoax, where is the love from Christians?". So I see in that you would have communication with them (atheists), so in turn you are testing us for an experiment to see how long we hold up to whatever you post, which from right off the bat was you stating you were going to be giving the facts.

I assume your primary reason for being here may be for the evolution debates and then some other topics within the God and Science portion of the forums in whole, however, evolution is NOT a fact, and it has no laws such as thereal stating "evolution is right up there with gravity", and gravity does have laws and it only took a short amount of time for it to have laws, evolution still doesn't, yet I keep hearing, "one of these days, scientists will figure it all out, it will have laws". I don't buy that, and sorry for assuming, but I don't believe your statement about not being an atheist. If I am wrong, I apologize, but from the get go, it already looked like trouble. It's better to be open about your true beliefs now than conceal them and lie about it.

The reason atheists get banned from here is because they don't comply with forum guidelines, which a requirement. Failure to comply and going full swing into battle mode GUARANTEES an almost instant ban. I do know though that atheists that report back to their forum(s) from being banned here will lie about why they were banned so we look bad. This has happened far too many times to be unnoticeable. Out of rare occasion, some believers will be banned because they too, do not comply with forum guidelines and they are militant about such things as the prior banned atheists here.

[Mr._Burns]

Mr. Burns, you seem to be on the defensive from the get go. You missed the point I was trying to make. I am merely suggesting that you lead by example. Instead of complaining, show us what you've got.

If this was any other discussion I would of stated my facts. This was a different situation which I believe needed to be handled differently.

[Mr._Burns]

No. Do you? I think the point here is that you denied my reasoning for frustration levels: commentors feeling frustration at having to repeatedly post, by stating, "People aren't being forced to post back-up." Then, you continue to demand back-up information. Getting back-up information is okay, but some people are going to be frustrated at having to provide it repeatedly, and feeling pressured to do so immediately. That's all...nothing to get heated about.

I think you haven't understood what I've been saying. There is plenty of proof to back-up the theological claims made on this site, but people get frustrated at having to look stuff up repeatedly and at having to do so for posters who urge an immediate response.

Again, there is proof. Remember, though, listening is key.


Mr. Burns, I think you're getting too upset. You know how I know that? You haven't listened to anything I've said, because what I said wasn't anything close to that.

If you listen to everyone else as pathetically as you've listened to me, I can understand why you're so frustrated. But, listening is a skill we learn way back in elementary school. Time for review?

P.S. Can't wait to hear from you on the clone issue!

Some people may be frustrated with having to back up their claims. But if you make a claim that I clearly know is wrong should you not have to back it up since I know your wrong? I've seen people refute a post and back it up, but the other person still disagrees and chooses not to back up theirs with proof. How logical is that?

Listening is only part of the issue, but backing up your claim with proof is very important. How can you expect someone to believe you with no reputable sources?

I'm not getting upset. I really have nothing to get too upset about.

You think I need a review for listening. Which I totally disagree with, nothing wrong with how I read and understand people's posts. Do you think you need a review in biology since you claimed clones don't exist when they obviously do?

My reply to your clone issue is in that topic.