| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
07 Sep 2005 04:18:27 PM |
| Object: |
VBM'S DISHONESTY |
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:22:11 -0700, "VBM"
<v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> spake thusly:
You can search Google for yourself. You will even find
a thread titled, "EVOLUTION IS TRUE".
Yes, but do you think that any person who says this
means that it is an absolute?
Gee, no, that couldn't be. I mean after all,
if someone says something is true, don't
they mean that they're saying that maybe
it isn't?
In science, absolutely.
You are playing games. The discussion is about
whether or not people claim it is true without a doubt.
I said nothing about what proper science is. I know
what proper science dictates. That is MY point.
I'm sure when you ask someone if what they
said about your wife is true, what you're really
asking is...
"So what you're saying is, that what you said
about my wife is actually only somewhat of a
possibility, right?"
That is not science, but layman's terminology.
You are dodging the issue. The issue is whether
or not that makes sense. It doesn't. When someone
says that it is TRUE, they are saying it is NOT wrong.
That is what has become of evolution.
"If something in science suddenly becomes
so sacrosanct that you can't question it,
then it ceases to be science," he said.
"And I really think that's what's become
of Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
You people talk about "questioning mechanisms",
etc., but you NEVER question whether or not it
happened in the first place and we BOTH KNOW
THAT!!!
Let's look at an example of someone who
YOU claim is NOT saying that it is true without
a doubt. I added the caps (except for the first
sentence at the beginning and the very last
sentence) to stress the point:
Jeremy Martin said:
"OH SWEET FUCKING HELL WHY DON'T YOU
IMITATE THE RETARDED ***** I HAD TO DEAL
WITH SOME MORE
Even though they had no damn clue what they
were saying, they basically said they accepted
micro evolution exists. What you FOOLS don't
understand is that macro evolution is all of the
changes that occur in micro evolution that have
happened enough times to completely change
something at Point B from what it was at Point A.
If you accept one, YOU'RE JUST BEING A
RETARD not accept the other.
STAB ME IN THE EYE"
I think if you asked him whether it was 100% true,
Dodge. You asked me to provide evidence that
people claim it is true, period. This man certainly
did that and was QUITE ADAMANT about it!
Now you want to make excuses for his words
and try to make it seems as if he was saying
that it might not be true!
You simply cannot admit that what I said is true
and you simply will not admit to the evidence
when it is provided to you, as DIRECT EVIDENCE
that what I said about evolutionists claiming it
as truth, is true and that makes you dishonest.
Therefore, I wish to have nothing further to do
with you.
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: VBM'S DISHONESTY |
07 Sep 2005 04:47:07 PM |
|
|
Here is Pastor Dave's very Christlike post:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ml4uh1t67b4orfqdnjs90on2psvh2do2hn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:22:11 -0700, "VBM"
<v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> spake thusly:
You can search Google for yourself. You will even find
a thread titled, "EVOLUTION IS TRUE".
Yes, but do you think that any person who says this
means that it is an absolute?
Gee, no, that couldn't be. I mean after all,
if someone says something is true, don't
they mean that they're saying that maybe
it isn't?
In science, absolutely.
You are playing games. The discussion is about
whether or not people claim it is true without a doubt.
I said nothing about what proper science is. I know
what proper science dictates. That is MY point.
But we are talking about scientific matters, so the terminology used has to
be analyzed based on scientific usage, not layman's usage.
The point is exactly that evolutionists do NOT claim it is true "without a
doubt". They say it is true with such a high degree of likelihood that it
should be accepted as a tentative fact and move forward accordingly.
I'm sure when you ask someone if what they
said about your wife is true, what you're really
asking is...
"So what you're saying is, that what you said
about my wife is actually only somewhat of a
possibility, right?"
That is not science, but layman's terminology.
You are dodging the issue. The issue is whether
or not that makes sense. It doesn't. When someone
says that it is TRUE, they are saying it is NOT wrong.
That is what has become of evolution.
No, find a single scientist who says that the theory of evolution is a
proven, indisputable fact.
"If something in science suddenly becomes
so sacrosanct that you can't question it,
then it ceases to be science," he said.
"And I really think that's what's become
of Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
And he is wrong. "Darwinism" has been questioned from the beginning and,
for a while, was rejected as the means of evolutionary development until
genetics came along to show that Darwin's theories were almost assuredly
correct in their basic outlines. Even today, every detail of the modern
synthesis is up for debate, adjusted and fine-tuned. Yes, the general idea
evolutionary development from earlier species is accepted as a near
absolute, but even then if evidence actually arose that falsified it, it
would not only be accepted, the person bringing the evidence and the
argument would be famous and given a Nobel Prize.
You people talk about "questioning mechanisms",
etc., but you NEVER question whether or not it
happened in the first place and we BOTH KNOW
THAT!!!
Never question? Well, that is not true. I started out questioning it
completely. Then I reviewed the evidence and concluded that the "fact" of
evolutionary development over time is almost assuredly correct. A very high
degree of certainty, but not an absolute. I would still be open to new
evidence and could revise my belief tomorrow if such evidence arose.
Let's look at an example of someone who
YOU claim is NOT saying that it is true without
a doubt. I added the caps (except for the first
sentence at the beginning and the very last
sentence) to stress the point:
Jeremy Martin said:
"OH SWEET FUCKING HELL WHY DON'T YOU
IMITATE THE RETARDED ***** I HAD TO DEAL
WITH SOME MORE
Even though they had no damn clue what they
were saying, they basically said they accepted
micro evolution exists. What you FOOLS don't
understand is that macro evolution is all of the
changes that occur in micro evolution that have
happened enough times to completely change
something at Point B from what it was at Point A.
If you accept one, YOU'RE JUST BEING A
RETARD not accept the other.
STAB ME IN THE EYE"
I think if you asked him whether it was 100% true,
Dodge. You asked me to provide evidence that
people claim it is true, period. This man certainly
did that and was QUITE ADAMANT about it!
Now you want to make excuses for his words
and try to make it seems as if he was saying
that it might not be true!
Ask him if he thinks it is an absolute.
You simply cannot admit that what I said is true
and you simply will not admit to the evidence
when it is provided to you, as DIRECT EVIDENCE
that what I said about evolutionists claiming it
as truth, is true and that makes you dishonest.
Therefore, I wish to have nothing further to do
with you.
But no, you are the one who is being dishonest. You insist that
"evolutionists" say something when it is not the general rule. It is not
what is taught by scientists or presented by the vast majority of those who
accept evolution.
Again, a belief that something is 99.99% certain will lead one to discuss in
near absolute terms because it IS near absolute in their reckoning. That
does not at all mean that they see it as having been proven and absolute.
And that is the original point. You are wanting people to PROVE something
that they do not believe is proven. Instead, you should be asking for them
to provide the evidence which causes them to hold the position with such
confidence. And then you could explain why that evidence is not sufficient
for that level of certainty and, instead, how the evidence makes your own
position more certain.
If you were being honest about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: VBM'S DISHONESTY |
08 Sep 2005 03:07:44 AM |
|
|
Oh, and by the way, I noticed that you posted this well after I posted my
response to your debate ideas. How very convenient of you to choose not to
"have anything further to do with me" as soon as you see what type of debate
you would have to engage in: one in which we would actually review the
evidence for both positions and compare them rather than the usual
"evolutionist, prove it!" type nonsense.
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ml4uh1t67b4orfqdnjs90on2psvh2do2hn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:22:11 -0700, "VBM"
<v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> spake thusly:
You can search Google for yourself. You will even find
a thread titled, "EVOLUTION IS TRUE".
Yes, but do you think that any person who says this
means that it is an absolute?
Gee, no, that couldn't be. I mean after all,
if someone says something is true, don't
they mean that they're saying that maybe
it isn't?
In science, absolutely.
You are playing games. The discussion is about
whether or not people claim it is true without a doubt.
I said nothing about what proper science is. I know
what proper science dictates. That is MY point.
I'm sure when you ask someone if what they
said about your wife is true, what you're really
asking is...
"So what you're saying is, that what you said
about my wife is actually only somewhat of a
possibility, right?"
That is not science, but layman's terminology.
You are dodging the issue. The issue is whether
or not that makes sense. It doesn't. When someone
says that it is TRUE, they are saying it is NOT wrong.
That is what has become of evolution.
"If something in science suddenly becomes
so sacrosanct that you can't question it,
then it ceases to be science," he said.
"And I really think that's what's become
of Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
You people talk about "questioning mechanisms",
etc., but you NEVER question whether or not it
happened in the first place and we BOTH KNOW
THAT!!!
Let's look at an example of someone who
YOU claim is NOT saying that it is true without
a doubt. I added the caps (except for the first
sentence at the beginning and the very last
sentence) to stress the point:
Jeremy Martin said:
"OH SWEET FUCKING HELL WHY DON'T YOU
IMITATE THE RETARDED ***** I HAD TO DEAL
WITH SOME MORE
Even though they had no damn clue what they
were saying, they basically said they accepted
micro evolution exists. What you FOOLS don't
understand is that macro evolution is all of the
changes that occur in micro evolution that have
happened enough times to completely change
something at Point B from what it was at Point A.
If you accept one, YOU'RE JUST BEING A
RETARD not accept the other.
STAB ME IN THE EYE"
I think if you asked him whether it was 100% true,
Dodge. You asked me to provide evidence that
people claim it is true, period. This man certainly
did that and was QUITE ADAMANT about it!
Now you want to make excuses for his words
and try to make it seems as if he was saying
that it might not be true!
You simply cannot admit that what I said is true
and you simply will not admit to the evidence
when it is provided to you, as DIRECT EVIDENCE
that what I said about evolutionists claiming it
as truth, is true and that makes you dishonest.
Therefore, I wish to have nothing further to do
with you.
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
