Zadocfish2 wrote:

Do you think you could look into the eyes of any of the hundreds of people who are right now losing their family members to Ebola and sincerely say that? I'm sure they'd appreciate that their suffering helps you appreciate your own beautiful life.

... Now that's a pretty emotional argument. That's how life is. Are you saying that the world is ugly because things that are sad happen a lot?

No.

Are you going to answer the question?

Never mind. I just got around to reading this:

Have you ever played the Ace Attorney series of games? It's like the Psych Lock system. With science, I'm either unlocked or red locks at worst; with Faith, it's black locks straight-up. Even if you present evidence, I will just avert my eyes and deny it.

Well, OK. Thanks for your honesty, at least.

Of course, that's the big problem with treating unsupported assertions as fact, and declaring that one is "unshakeable" on this. If your religious leaders suddenly do a complete volte face, you have two choices:

[1] Remain "unshakeable" with respect to the assertions in question, and launch a schism;

[2] Follow your religious leaders, and hope no one notices that you weren't as "unshakeable" on this as you declared.

Of course, the situation is even worse for the religious leaders in question, who don't have the benefit of public anonymity that their followers have. Who have all the fun of explaining why assertions previously treated as immutable tenets of doctrine are now suddenly being abandoned.

That's another reason to prefer science to religion. In the world of religion, being wrong is an embarrassment to be avoided at all costs. In the world of science, being wrong is frequently a research opportunity.

Can I ask a question? When did this threads title change from "Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"" to "The Religious Beliefs of Zadocfish2"?

Now.

Of course, that's the big problem with treating unsupported assertions as fact, and declaring that one is "unshakeable" on this. If your religious leaders suddenly do a complete volte face, you have two choices:

[1] Remain "unshakeable" with respect to the assertions in question, and launch a schism;

[2] Follow your religious leaders, and hope no one notices that you weren't as "unshakeable" on this as you declared.

Non-denominational churches don't have this problem so much. I can either move churches or ignore the things I don't like.

Can I ask a question? When did this threads title change from "Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"" to "The Religious Beliefs of Zadocfish2"?

I concur, 100%. I've just been answering asked questions. Let's get back to creationist-specific stuff.

Zadocfish2 wrote:

Can I ask a question? When did this threads title change from "Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"" to "The Religious Beliefs of Zadocfish2"?

I concur, 100%. I've just been answering asked questions. Let's get back to creationist-specific stuff.

Actually, your comments here have been quite relevant to the question of how creationism manages to persist despite being contradicted by every single piece of evidence that exists.

Shrunk wrote:

Zadocfish2 wrote:

Can I ask a question? When did this threads title change from "Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"" to "The Religious Beliefs of Zadocfish2"?

I concur, 100%. I've just been answering asked questions. Let's get back to creationist-specific stuff.

Actually, your comments here have been quite relevant to the question of how creationism manages to persist despite being contradicted by every single piece of evidence that exists.

I'm staring to wonder what thread you've read.