| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Heidi" |
| Date: |
07 Jul 2005 05:03:33 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Intelligence matters II |
Grendel wrote:
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
True scientists are open to all possible theories that explain observed
facts. Intelligent Design is the only theory that adequately explains
the fact of irreducibly complex organisms.
Just as watches can't function without all their vital parts, the
simplest living cells can't function, or survive, without all their
vital parts. They couldn't have evolved through successive stages of
development without having all their vital parts from the very
beginning. Evolution can't explain this fact of science.
Many of the original watchmakers were locksmiths.
Many of the original surgeons were barbers.
Mendel was a monk.
God works in mysterious ways.
True, many reasonable people will think designer means "God." However,
acknowledgment of God is not required. Well-known religious skeptics
have supported Intelligent Design while saying they don't know what or
who the designer is.
It took mathematicians along time to discover the number 'zero'.
Even longer to discover 'infinity'.
You don't need them to do arithmetic.
Biased science turns to evolution instead of the only reasonable
conclusion because it might mean there is a God. That is not science,
that is religion and does not belong in the classroom unless balanced
with more logical, scientific explanations like Intelligent Design.
You seem to be under the impression that: all scientists are atheists.
That's contrary to the evidence I've seen.
Can you provide some proof ?
Gary Stewart
North Versailles
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_350726.html
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 02:43:13 PM |
|
|
Heidi wrote:
Grendel wrote:
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Irreducible complexity shows that evolutionists are living a lie. As I
mentioned elsewhere, although evolution may have started out as genuine
scientific inquiry, atheists saw its potential to attack Christianity.
More specifically they saw its potential to attack the way that some
Christians presume that the 1st chapter of Genesis is talking about 7
days of creation. So non-science minded atheists put on the mask of
scientific inquiry and then put evolution on a tall pedestal. They
then declared evolution to be an exact science but for the sole purpose
of making fools out of Christians, both science and Christianity be
damned. Hey, atheists were getting their jollies!
True scientists are open to all possible theories that explain observed
facts. Intelligent Design is the only theory that adequately explains
the fact of irreducibly complex organisms.
Just as watches can't function without all their vital parts, the
simplest living cells can't function, or survive, without all their
vital parts. They couldn't have evolved through successive stages of
development without having all their vital parts from the very
beginning. Evolution can't explain this fact of science.
Many of the original watchmakers were locksmiths.
Many of the original surgeons were barbers.
Mendel was a monk.
God works in mysterious ways.
Yes, when God made man in his image, as opposed to the animals, it
certainly made a difference with respect to man's capacity to learn new
things, didn't it?
True, many reasonable people will think designer means "God." However,
acknowledgment of God is not required. Well-known religious skeptics
have supported Intelligent Design while saying they don't know what or
who the designer is.
It took mathematicians along time to discover the number 'zero'.
Even longer to discover 'infinity'.
You don't need them to do arithmetic.
Biased science turns to evolution instead of the only reasonable
conclusion because it might mean there is a God. That is not science,
that is religion and does not belong in the classroom unless balanced
with more logical, scientific explanations like Intelligent Design.
You seem to be under the impression that: all scientists are atheists.
That's contrary to the evidence I've seen.
Can you provide some proof ?
Gary Stewart
North Versailles
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_350726.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 04:01:04 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 12:43:13 -0700, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> spake thusly:
More specifically they saw its potential to attack
the way that some Christians presume that the
1st chapter of Genesis is talking about 7 days
of creation.
There is only one Christian view of Genesis
and that is a literal 7 day creation. There is
absolutely no way to reconcile billions of
years with Genesis.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II - |
10 Jul 2005 06:47:50 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Heidi wrote:
Grendel wrote:
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Irreducible complexity shows that evolutionists are living a lie.
===>"Irreducible complexity" only shows that Creationists never
tire of producing MYTHS.
The oldest myth is the ET YHWH sculpting "Adam" out of mud and
making hive alive by blowing air into his knows.
One of the newest is "irreducible complexity".
There's no such thing.
Look at a complex and beautiful SNOW FLAKE and learn the
TRUTH. No super-intelligence produces them by the billions,
they are simply a PRODUCT OF NATURE.
So is everything else you guys claim to have been produced
by some other extraterrestrial super-intelligence.
It is all natural, including your inability to comprehend
the natural process of EVOLUTION. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
07 Jul 2005 05:40:35 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:03:33 -0000, Heidi <Heidi@classroom.net> wrote:
Grendel wrote:
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Who "made the rules?' Atheists pretending to be scientists.
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
The FACTS of science do not "prove" either creation or evolution. The
FACTS merely state what the world is made of.
True scientists are open to all possible theories that explain observed
facts. Intelligent Design is the only theory that adequately explains
the fact of irreducibly complex organisms.
Just as watches can't function without all their vital parts, the
simplest living cells can't function, or survive, without all their
vital parts. They couldn't have evolved through successive stages of
development without having all their vital parts from the very
beginning. Evolution can't explain this fact of science.
Many of the original watchmakers were locksmiths.
Evolution wants us to believe that we can take the finest 17 Jewel
Swiss watch, tear it apart carefully til no two pieces are attached,
put it in a bag, shake it for a million years, open the bag, and we'll
have a reassembled, properly tuned 17 Jewel Swiss watch.
Many of the original surgeons were barbers.
Evolution wants us to believe a princess kissed an enchanted frog and
it turned into a prince (same concept as evolution; just a different
timeline)
Mendel was a monk.
So what?
God works in mysterious ways.
And God told us how the world came into being.
True, many reasonable people will think designer means "God." However,
acknowledgment of God is not required. Well-known religious skeptics
have supported Intelligent Design while saying they don't know what or
who the designer is.
It took mathematicians along time to discover the number 'zero'.
Even longer to discover 'infinity'.
You don't need them to do arithmetic.
And God created the universe without math.
Biased science turns to evolution instead of the only reasonable
conclusion because it might mean there is a God. That is not science,
that is religion and does not belong in the classroom unless balanced
with more logical, scientific explanations like Intelligent Design.
You seem to be under the impression that: all scientists are atheists.
No, but the atheists seem to be the only ones we hear about or from.
Name me 10 top scientists who are Christians and Creationists. I could
probably name you 5.
Now name me 10 top scientists who are atheists. I could name you two
off the top of my head.
Steve Hawkings
Isaac Asimov.
jw
That's contrary to the evidence I've seen.
Can you provide some proof ?
Gary Stewart
North Versailles
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_350726.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AR" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
08 Jul 2005 11:20:28 AM |
|
|
1996 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) survey
Quote:
Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was
65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was
79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with
few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS
mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological
scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in
immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in
God, 7.5% in immortality).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 10:36:05 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo>
Date written: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:40:35 -0700
MsgID:<0gbrc1d02u8fcf6cf0l0lsprph4e2l2niu@4ax.com>
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Who "made the rules?' Atheists pretending to be scientists.
No, anyone who has any common logical sense knows the rules are based on logic
and facts.
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
Of course you would say that because you are biased instead of objective.
The FACTS of science do not "prove" either creation or evolution. The
FACTS merely state what the world is made of.
Evolution has the rock solid evidence of fossils to bolster it's claim whereas
creationism absolutely no evidence that a God or an "intelligent designer" ever
existed.
True scientists are open to all possible theories that explain observed
facts. Intelligent Design is the only theory that adequately explains
the fact of irreducibly complex organisms.
Just as watches can't function without all their vital parts, the
simplest living cells can't function, or survive, without all their
vital parts. They couldn't have evolved through successive stages of
development without having all their vital parts from the very
beginning. Evolution can't explain this fact of science.
Many of the original watchmakers were locksmiths.
Evolution wants us to believe that we can take the finest 17 Jewel
Swiss watch, tear it apart carefully til no two pieces are attached,
put it in a bag, shake it for a million years, open the bag, and we'll
have a reassembled, properly tuned 17 Jewel Swiss watch.
No it doesn't. That is the phony Christian remake of evolution and not what
evolution actually teaches.
But to be fair here, creationism wants us to believe that one God who has never
been demonstrated to exist outside of their imagination, magically created the
Universe.
Many of the original surgeons were barbers.
Evolution wants us to believe a princess kissed an enchanted frog and
it turned into a prince (same concept as evolution; just a different
timeline)
Christians want us to believe that is what evolution wants us to believe, but
that is not true.
Mendel was a monk.
So what?
God works in mysterious ways.
And God told us how the world came into being.
God told you nothing of the kind, what you have is the hearsay of what God
supposedly said to Moses in an ancient book full of contradictions and
scientific inaccuracies.
True, many reasonable people will think designer means "God." However,
acknowledgment of God is not required. Well-known religious skeptics
have supported Intelligent Design while saying they don't know what or
who the designer is.
It took mathematicians along time to discover the number 'zero'.
Even longer to discover 'infinity'.
You don't need them to do arithmetic.
And God created the universe without math.
How do you know what God did when He created the Universe? Are you able to read
God's mind? Did God personally tell you *EXACTLY* how He created the Universe or
do all you have is a Reader's Digest condensed version of how He created the
Universe and you are just extrapolating?
Biased science turns to evolution instead of the only reasonable
conclusion because it might mean there is a God. That is not science,
that is religion and does not belong in the classroom unless balanced
with more logical, scientific explanations like Intelligent Design.
You seem to be under the impression that: all scientists are atheists.
No, but the atheists seem to be the only ones we hear about or from.
That isn't true for me.
Name me 10 top scientists who are Christians and Creationists. I could
probably name you 5.
Now name me 10 top scientists who are atheists. I could name you two
off the top of my head.
Steve Hawkings
Isaac Asimov.
Unlike you, I don't care what religion a scientist has or not, nor do I judge
them on that basis. All I care about is if they have facts.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ۥ R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 11:21:20 PM |
|
|
In article <njp3d1puqef1c1eiodjjbogpujjha073ke@4ax.com>, The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> wrote:
Reply to article by: jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo>
Date written: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:40:35 -0700
MsgID:<0gbrc1d02u8fcf6cf0l0lsprph4e2l2niu@4ax.com>
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Who "made the rules?' Atheists pretending to be scientists.
No, anyone who has any common logical sense knows the rules are based on logic
and facts.
• Of this you can be sure, because one who calls himself The Sage must
surely be one.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
12 Jul 2005 11:07:03 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: (ۥ R. L. Measures)
Date written: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:21:20 -0700
MsgID:<_r-1007052121200001@192.168.1.100>
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Who "made the rules?' Atheists pretending to be scientists.
No, anyone who has any common logical sense knows the rules are based on logic
and facts.
Of this you can be sure, because one who calls himself The Sage must
surely be one.
Logical fallacies do not make good arguments. Attack the argument, not the
author...if you can! I doubt you can, but at least give it a try.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ۥ R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
13 Jul 2005 05:36:51 AM |
|
|
In article <7n49d1tqbli8ttl30ffgbcecvb2neblscv@4ax.com>, The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> wrote:
Reply to article by: (ۥ R. L. Measures)
Date written: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:21:20 -0700
MsgID:<_r-1007052121200001@192.168.1.100>
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Who "made the rules?' Atheists pretending to be scientists.
No, anyone who has any common logical sense knows the rules are based
on logic
and facts.
Of this you can be sure, because one who calls himself The Sage must
surely be one.
Logical fallacies do not make good arguments. Attack the argument, not the
author...if you can! I doubt you can, but at least give it a try.
The Sage
** No argument is needed since you have already concluded for the
unenlightened that you are one who is venerated for experience, judgment,
and wisdom.
cheers Mr./Miss _____?
..
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
13 Jul 2005 09:43:34 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: (ۥ R. L. Measures)
Date written: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:36:51 -0700
MsgID:<_r-1307050336510001@192.168.1.100>
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Who "made the rules?' Atheists pretending to be scientists.
No, anyone who has any common logical sense knows the rules are based on logic
and facts.
Of this you can be sure, because one who calls himself The Sage must
surely be one.
Logical fallacies do not make good arguments. Attack the argument, not the
author...if you can! I doubt you can, but at least give it a try.
** No argument is needed since you have already concluded for the
unenlightened that you are one who is venerated for experience, judgment,
and wisdom.
You have no argument since you clearly cannot tell the difference between a
conclusion and a usenet handle. A handle means nothing and tells us nothing
about either what the holder of the handle thinks about themself or what their
conclusion of any topic is.
Get a clue idiot!
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ۥ R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
14 Jul 2005 09:35:56 AM |
|
|
In article <a7kbd11mdpcst2ue9i30gda31ai5l7qumt@4ax.com>, The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> wrote:
Reply to article by: (ۥ R. L. Measures)
Date written: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:36:51 -0700
MsgID:<_r-1307050336510001@192.168.1.100>
The letter writer who beleives in evolution suggested Intelligent
Design
isn't science because it requires belief in God. He used a "red
herring"
logical fallacy, to take the focus off science and claim Intelligent
Design is religion and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Make up your mind. Isn't it science or isn't it religion ?
If you want to teach ID in a speculative philosophy class I'm
sure the scientists wouldn't mind, but if you want to play
in their game, you have to play by their rules. Fair's fair.
Who "made the rules?' Atheists pretending to be scientists.
No, anyone who has any common logical sense knows the rules are
based on logic
and facts.
Of this you can be sure, because one who calls himself The Sage must
surely be one.
Logical fallacies do not make good arguments. Attack the argument, not the
author...if you can! I doubt you can, but at least give it a try.
** No argument is needed since you have already concluded for the
unenlightened that you are one who is venerated for experience, judgment,
and wisdom.
You have no argument since you clearly cannot tell the difference between a
conclusion and a usenet handle. A handle means nothing and tells us nothing
about either what the holder of the handle thinks about themself or what their
conclusion of any topic is.
Get a clue idiot!
The Sage
• chortle
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Red Rum" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
07 Jul 2005 09:33:58 PM |
|
|
In article <0gbrc1d02u8fcf6cf0l0lsprph4e2l2niu@4ax.com>, jw
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
all this means is that they (like you) worked with an idiot
QUOTE
"Evolution has always threatened traditional Christianity. That is why
Charles Darwin is so vigorously attacked, even today, in some religious
circles. However, the fact is that the typical religious attack on Darwin
is light years away from the place where Darwin made his impact on
traditional understanding.
Darwin shattered biblical literalism and its seven-day creation story. The
critics of Darwin, unable to meet this challenge, finally accommodated
Darwin by suggesting that each of the days referred to in the creation
story might have represented eons of time and that the evolutionary method
might therefore be accurate. They believed that this compromise left them
with the claim of biblical accuracy still in tact. It was a shallow and
papered-over peace destined not to last. It only served to keep the
Darwinian wolf away from the Christian door for another 100 years.
Eventually, the real Darwinian challenge became visible and, when it did,
the whole interpretative myth by which Christianity presented its faith
system began to crumble. That myth asserted that in the beginning was a
good creation at which time all things bore witness to God's perfection.
Then there came an act of rebellion - told in the Garden of Eden story as
an act of disobeying God's only prohibition that forbade the eating of the
fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This act plunged
the world into a state of sin and separation from which there was no way
of escape that was open to the fallen creature. Even God seemed unable to
overcome the fall. The flood at the time of Noah was designed to destroy
all living things so that God could begin anew with an unfallen world.
However, even the righteous Noah still possessed the human weakness that
resulted, we are told, from the fall so sin was still present in the human
race. Next at Mt. Sinai, we are told that God sent the law to guide human
beings back to their original perfection.
The fallen human creature was, however, unable to keep God's precepts even
when they were fully known. Then God sent the prophets to recall at least
the messianic people to God's purpose in creation. However, the prophets
were murdered and banished. Finally, the story says "in the fullness of
time" God entered human life in the person of Jesus, who bore the
punishment of the fall, was victimized by it and paid the price for it in
the crucifixion and overcame it in the Resurrection. Finally, the Church
was created in which baptism could wash from each newborn life the stain
of the fall and the Eucharist or the Mass could reenact, week by week, the
drama of salvation so that believers in every age could appropriate for
themselves the salvation offered on the cross of Calvary. This Christian
myth constituted a neat theological system and it has dominated
theological thinking for! most of the 2000 years of Christian history. The
only problem is tha t this myth is based on an understanding of human
origins that is simply wrong.
Darwin forced us to acknowledge that there never was a finished and
perfect creation. Creation, he asserted is an ongoing and unfinished
process. Human life is evolving from lower forms of life so it was,
therefore, not created perfect. If perfection was not our original
definition, then we could not fall into sin, not even metaphorically. This
means that there never was something called "the fall." Human beings
cannot, therefore, be rescued from a fall that never happened, nor can
they be restored to a status that they have never possessed. All life is
in flux. That was the Darwinian insight. Our problem is not that we are
fallen sinners; our problem is that we have not yet become fully human. If
this is so then the old way of telling the Jesus story as the invading
divine rescuer of a fallen humanity no longer makes sense. To speak of a
Christ, who calls and empowers us to be more deeply and fully human, might
be the new way to tell that story. One thing is sure, until we find a new
way, there is not much hope for a Christian future."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freddy X" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
07 Jul 2005 08:43:43 PM |
|
|
jw wrote:
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
The FACTS of science do not "prove" either creation or evolution. The
FACTS merely state what the world is made of.
Evolution wants us to believe that we can take the finest 17 Jewel
Swiss watch, tear it apart carefully til no two pieces are attached,
put it in a bag, shake it for a million years, open the bag, and we'll
have a reassembled, properly tuned 17 Jewel Swiss watch.
jw, you are really stupid for a person claiming to "have worked in a
variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period"! Why do
creationists continually embarrass themselves by making the idiotic
comparison between organic material (which can grow and change ON ITS
OWN) to machinery?
Evolution wants us to believe a princess kissed an enchanted frog and
it turned into a prince (same concept as evolution; just a different
timeline)
Of course the idea that a great wizard (i.e. God) 6000 thousand years
ago snapped his fingers and created the universe and everything in it
in 6 days has much more scientific merit than evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
12 Jul 2005 09:56:05 PM |
|
|
Freddy X wrote:
jw wrote:
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
The FACTS of science do not "prove" either creation or evolution. The
FACTS merely state what the world is made of.
Evolution wants us to believe that we can take the finest 17 Jewel
Swiss watch, tear it apart carefully til no two pieces are attached,
put it in a bag, shake it for a million years, open the bag, and we'll
have a reassembled, properly tuned 17 Jewel Swiss watch.
jw, you are really stupid for a person claiming to "have worked in a
variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period"! Why do
creationists continually embarrass themselves by making the idiotic
comparison between organic material (which can grow and change ON ITS
OWN) to machinery?
Incredible. You completely missed jw's point. (This post is going on
the wall.)
The scientific question that you are overlooking is how did the atoms
in the organic material get together and then arrange themselves to
form an organic material that grows and changes on its own? Jw's
analogy concerning the watch is a way of saying, with respect to the
scientifically based concern of irreducible complexity, that atoms
can't just get together and form organic material by random chance.
So please address the question as to how organic material originated.
Evolution wants us to believe a princess kissed an enchanted frog and
it turned into a prince (same concept as evolution; just a different
timeline)
Of course the idea that a great wizard (i.e. God) 6000 thousand years
ago snapped his fingers and created the universe and everything in it
in 6 days has much more scientific merit than evolution.
Although I also question the six days, the bottom line is that you
don't know what happened 6000 years ago because you weren't around
then. Us Christians are at least being upfront with people when we say
that our beliefs about what did and didn't happen that long ago are
based on faith.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
08 Jul 2005 01:05:20 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On 7 Jul 2005 18:43:43 -0700, "Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote:
jw wrote:
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
The FACTS of science do not "prove" either creation or evolution. The
FACTS merely state what the world is made of.
Evolution wants us to believe that we can take the finest 17 Jewel
Swiss watch, tear it apart carefully til no two pieces are attached,
put it in a bag, shake it for a million years, open the bag, and we'll
have a reassembled, properly tuned 17 Jewel Swiss watch.
jw, you are really stupid
Actually, I'm not.
And if you were ever to interview me for a technical writing position,
I am betting you would be QUITE impressed with my background.
It includes work for DOD (that's the Department of Defense for you,
the uninitiated), Microsoft, Boeing, GE (Navy), Systems Northwest
(they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), Seattle Silicon
Technology (they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), and a
number of other companies you've probably never heard of.
My point was NOT that *I* am a brilliant scientist, but that I have
WORKED with brilliant scientists.
for a person claiming to "have worked in a
variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period"! Why do
creationists continually embarrass themselves
And I didn't embarrass myself. Not a little.
jw
snip
And by the way-- to address your final ridiculoud point however
briefly.
Nowhere does it say that God "snapped His fingers". It says "He
spoke..."
and the world came inuto being.
And if you weren't there-- whether 6 thousand or 6 million or 6
billion years ago when this universe came into being,
yuo have no right to tell me how it happened.
Now THAT IS dumb!
"I wasn't there, but I KNOW what happened!"
Any judge would laugh you out of court!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
08 Jul 2005 03:01:39 PM |
|
|
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:hk5sc1pf1f0ka5hkjg5ce0g8dlko47r50a@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On 7 Jul 2005 18:43:43 -0700, "Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote:
jw wrote:
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
The FACTS of science do not "prove" either creation or evolution. The
FACTS merely state what the world is made of.
Evolution wants us to believe that we can take the finest 17 Jewel
Swiss watch, tear it apart carefully til no two pieces are attached,
put it in a bag, shake it for a million years, open the bag, and we'll
have a reassembled, properly tuned 17 Jewel Swiss watch.
jw, you are really stupid
Actually, I'm not.
And if you were ever to interview me for a technical writing position,
I am betting you would be QUITE impressed with my background.
It includes work for DOD (that's the Department of Defense for you,
the uninitiated), Microsoft, Boeing, GE (Navy), Systems Northwest
(they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), Seattle Silicon
Technology (they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), and a
number of other companies you've probably never heard of.
My point was NOT that *I* am a brilliant scientist, but that I have
WORKED with brilliant scientists.
And you quite apparently did not learn much!
for a person claiming to "have worked in a
variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period"! Why do
creationists continually embarrass themselves
And I didn't embarrass myself. Not a little.
jw
snip
And by the way-- to address your final ridiculoud point however
briefly.
Nowhere does it say that God "snapped His fingers". It says "He
spoke..."
and the world came inuto being.
And if you weren't there-- whether 6 thousand or 6 million or 6
billion years ago when this universe came into being,
yuo have no right to tell me how it happened.
Now THAT IS dumb!
"I wasn't there, but I KNOW what happened!"
Any judge would laugh you out of court!
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
08 Jul 2005 10:08:56 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:01:39 -0400, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:hk5sc1pf1f0ka5hkjg5ce0g8dlko47r50a@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On 7 Jul 2005 18:43:43 -0700, "Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote:
jw wrote:
I have worked in a variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period
as a documentation person, and I LOT of the scientists I worked with--
the best in the field-- were Christians who were commited to
Creationism.
The FACTS of science do not "prove" either creation or evolution. The
FACTS merely state what the world is made of.
Evolution wants us to believe that we can take the finest 17 Jewel
Swiss watch, tear it apart carefully til no two pieces are attached,
put it in a bag, shake it for a million years, open the bag, and we'll
have a reassembled, properly tuned 17 Jewel Swiss watch.
jw, you are really stupid
Actually, I'm not.
And if you were ever to interview me for a technical writing position,
I am betting you would be QUITE impressed with my background.
It includes work for DOD (that's the Department of Defense for you,
the uninitiated), Microsoft, Boeing, GE (Navy), Systems Northwest
(they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), Seattle Silicon
Technology (they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), and a
number of other companies you've probably never heard of.
My point was NOT that *I* am a brilliant scientist, but that I have
WORKED with brilliant scientists.
And you quite apparently did not learn much!
Another "genius" burps.
jw
for a person claiming to "have worked in a
variety of scientific areas over a 20 + year period"! Why do
creationists continually embarrass themselves
And I didn't embarrass myself. Not a little.
jw
snip
And by the way-- to address your final ridiculoud point however
briefly.
Nowhere does it say that God "snapped His fingers". It says "He
spoke..."
and the world came inuto being.
And if you weren't there-- whether 6 thousand or 6 million or 6
billion years ago when this universe came into being,
yuo have no right to tell me how it happened.
Now THAT IS dumb!
"I wasn't there, but I KNOW what happened!"
Any judge would laugh you out of court!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freddy X" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
09 Jul 2005 01:04:33 AM |
|
|
jw wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 18:43:43 -0700, "Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote:
jw, you are really stupid
Actually, I'm not.
And if you were ever to interview me for a technical writing position,
I am betting you would be QUITE impressed with my background.
See jw, you are stupid. I couldn't give a rat's ***** about your
background; it's your intelligence (or lack of) as exhibited by your
posts I'm concerned about.
It includes work for DOD (that's the Department of Defense for you,
the uninitiated), Microsoft, Boeing, GE (Navy), Systems Northwest
(they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), Seattle Silicon
Technology (they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), and a
number of other companies you've probably never heard of.
You were a gofer for various companies. Good for you!
My point was NOT that *I* am a brilliant scientist, but that I have
WORKED with brilliant scientists.
So do most brilliant scientists drink bold or mild coffee?
Nowhere does it say that God "snapped His fingers". It says "He
spoke..."
and the world came inuto being.
Idiot, you don't even know what sarcasm is.
And if you weren't there-- whether 6 thousand or 6 million or 6
billion years ago when this universe came into being,
yuo have no right to tell me how it happened.
Now THAT IS dumb!
"I wasn't there, but I KNOW what happened!"
Any judge would laugh you out of court!
Do you know why judges don't laugh people out of court for saying, "I
wasn't there, but I KNOW what happened!"? It's called EVIDENCE or
PROOF! Something creationists have no idea of.
You are really, really stupid, jw.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
09 Jul 2005 07:54:31 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On 8 Jul 2005 23:04:33 -0700, "Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote:
jw wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 18:43:43 -0700, "Freddy X" <dancesucka@rock.com> wrote:
jw, you are really stupid
Actually, I'm not.
And if you were ever to interview me for a technical writing position,
I am betting you would be QUITE impressed with my background.
See jw, you are stupid.
In fact, I am not. My views-- however contrary to yours-- are NOT
a reflection of my native intelligence, your bullying to the contrary.
If I told you how smart I am, in fact, you likely would not believe
me.
And I am educated enough to poke holes in evolutionary theory big
enough to drive Mack trucks through with room to spare.
I couldn't give a rat's ***** about your
background; it's your intelligence (or lack of) as exhibited by your
posts I'm concerned about.
I could not care less about your opinion, either.'
If you beileve in evolution, it has NOTHING to do with native
intelligence and EVERYthing to do with world view.
It includes work for DOD (that's the Department of Defense for you,
the uninitiated), Microsoft, Boeing, GE (Navy), Systems Northwest
(they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), Seattle Silicon
Technology (they/we helped develop the computer you sit at), and a
number of other companies you've probably never heard of.
You were a gofer for various companies. Good for you!
I thought I made it clear, moron, that I was a documentation
specialist.
My point was NOT that *I* am a brilliant scientist, but that I have
WORKED with brilliant scientists.
So do most brilliant scientists drink bold or mild coffee?
Hehehe.
Congratulations. Now I know one person who chuckled.
Nowhere does it say that God "snapped His fingers". It says "He
spoke..."
and the world came inuto being.
Idiot, you don't even know what sarcasm is.
Idiot. What color is the sky on your home planet?
And since I have now given yuo all this time to indicate some sign of
intelligent life, and all you can muster are junior high school- level
putdowns that are equivalent to "let's compare sizes", I leave you.
jw
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
09 Jul 2005 08:41:38 AM |
|
|
( free.christians added )
jw wrote:
jw, you are really stupid
Actually, I'm not.
And if you were ever to interview me for a technical
writing position, I am betting you would be QUITE impressed
with my background.
See jw, you are stupid.
In fact, I am not.
In fact, you are quite stupid.
My views-- however contrary to yours-- are NOT a reflection
of my native intelligence, your bullying to the contrary.
The bully accuses others of bullying. That's pretty funny.
If I told you how smart I am, in fact, you likely would
not believe me.
That's true enough. The fact is that you spend a lot of time bragging
about your "intelligence" and how smart you are, and then promptly get
stomped into the dirt, and you run away, whimpering.
And I am educated enough to poke holes in evolutionary
theory big enough to drive Mack trucks through with room
to spare.
I'll take that action. bring it on.
Snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
09 Jul 2005 10:00:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
( free.christians added )
jw wrote:
Snip
And I am educated enough to poke holes in evolutionary
theory big enough to drive Mack trucks through with room
to spare.
I'll take that action. bring it on.
Well, here's a shock: Our resident genius and professional writer has
failed to respond to this.
Just what the world needs--another Christian fraud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nymm" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 09:36:22 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
horndw@gmail.com wrote:
( free.christians added )
jw wrote:
Snip
And I am educated enough to poke holes in evolutionary
theory big enough to drive Mack trucks through with room
to spare.
I'll take that action. bring it on.
Well, here's a shock: Our resident genius and professional writer has
failed to respond to this.
Just what the world needs--another Christian fraud.
John is not the only Christian.
Here are some holes in evolutionary theory:
1. the origin of chlorophyll - why didn't it kill the cell in which it
appeared?
2. why are there so many gaps between kinds in the fossil record?
3. why are there fossils that go across geological time bands?
4. why did evolutionists need to perpetrate frauds such as the piltdown man
hoax?
5. why did the Java man fossils get bundled away when scientists started to
treat them with skepticism?
6. why is there no relationship between genetic similarity of races and
linguistic similarities?
7. why is plasma closer to fresh than salt water?
8. why are there so few fossils bearing in mind that life has been going on
for so long according to your theories, and yet when there are some there
are often a lot of them together?
9. if all the dinosaurs were killed by the iridium layer and the K/T event,
then why didn't crocodiles, turtles and snakes also die out at the same
time?
10 if life evolved on this planet, in a virtually infinite universe, over
almost infinite time, then why is it that we haven't had contact from other
planets? Isn't that infinitely impossible?
11. how could the first strand of working replicable DNA appear inside a
semi-permeable membrane without help?
12. why is there no other species that can contemplate the meaning of
meaning?
Kindly "take the action" of these twelve questions.
\Nymm\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 11:10:43 AM |
|
|
1. Why are creationists unable to offer even one single evidence
for the first human having been sculpted out of mud and
made alive by blowing air into his nose, as described in
Genesis 2?
2. Why are creationists unable to offer any evidence for the ET
thus described? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 01:46:14 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
1. Why are creationists unable to offer even one single
evidence for the first human having been sculpted out of
mud and made alive by blowing air into his nose, as described in
Genesis 2?
2. Why are creationists unable to offer any evidence for the ET
thus described? -- L.
Creationists have *no* evidence for creationism--none, zero, zilch,
nada. Never have had any. So their strategy has been to try to find
"holes" in "evolutionary theory" (which they usually don't understand
or misrepresent) and presume that, for some reason, each of those
individual "holes" somehow falsifies "the theory," though they can also
never quite explain how that is.
The "professional" creationists lie and deceive the flock. The members
of the flock simply parrot their comments without having much
understanding of them or the concepts behind them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II - |
10 Jul 2005 02:09:57 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
1. Why are creationists unable to offer even one single
evidence for the first human having been sculpted out of
mud and made alive by blowing air into his nose, as described in
Genesis 2?
2. Why are creationists unable to offer any evidence for the ET
thus described? -- L.
Creationists have *no* evidence for creationism--none, zero, zilch,
nada. Never have had any. So their strategy has been to try to find
"holes" in "evolutionary theory" (which they usually don't understand
or misrepresent) and presume that, for some reason, each of those
individual "holes" somehow falsifies "the theory," though they can also
never quite explain how that is.
===>Even if none of the theories worked completely, that would not
support a denial of evolution, which is a universal phenomenon.
The "professional" creationists lie and deceive the flock. The members
of the flock simply parrot their comments without having much
understanding of them or the concepts behind them.
===>But they are happy that someone calling himself a "scientist"
supports their primitive ideas, because they are vaguely aware that
those ideas conflict with scientific observation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 01:57:55 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 11:46:14 -0700, "Dave"
<horndw@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Libertarius wrote:
1. Why are creationists unable to offer even one single
evidence for the first human having been sculpted out of
mud and made alive by blowing air into his nose, as described in
Genesis 2?
2. Why are creationists unable to offer any evidence for the ET
thus described? -- L.
Creationists have *no* evidence for creationism--none, zero, zilch,
nada. Never have had any.
That is a claim, not proof.
So their strategy has been to try to find "holes"
in "evolutionary theory"
There are major holes.
(which they usually don't understand or misrepresent)
Yes, we know. Anyone who doesn't believe it, just
doesn't understand it. Typical evolutionist lie.
"We're smart and you're dumb, so just shut up
and believe us".
The fact is, that while you claim that Creationists
only try to find holes in evolution, the reality is,
that you just spent your time trying to punch holes
in Creationism, with silly lame insult, rather than
proving macroevolution.
If macroevolution were true, you would have just
posted the proof and been done with it. Yet that
is something that NEVER HAPPENS.
Prove macroevolution. You can't. And don't try
to turn the tables. I am RESPONDING to YOUR
claims.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 02:17:42 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 11:46:14 -0700, "Dave"
<horndw@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Libertarius wrote:
1. Why are creationists unable to offer even one
single evidence for the first human having been
sculpted out of mud and made alive by blowing air
into his nose, as described in Genesis 2?
2. Why are creationists unable to offer any evidence
for the ET thus described? -- L.
Creationists have *no* evidence for creationism--none,
zero, zilch, nada. Never have had any.
That is a claim, not proof.
Actually, it's a statement of fact. If you have any evidence, by all
means, present it.
So their strategy has been to try to find "holes"
in "evolutionary theory"
There are major holes.
Such as...?
(which they usually don't understand or misrepresent)
Yes, we know.
No, you don't. In fact, you, as much as anyone, has shown that you're
completely clueless.
Anyone who doesn't believe it, just
doesn't understand it.
Sound familiar? Christians use that all the time. But the fact is
that, in the case of science, it's true, and in the case of evolution,
it's true.
Typical evolutionist lie.
A lie is a deliberate deception. Show that I lied. Show that I *know*
something other than what I said, and that I said it, anyway.
"We're smart and you're dumb, so just shut up
and believe us".
"We know, and you don't." There's a difference. Sophists like you
like to try to turn that into rhetoric. "They say you don't know, so
you're stupid." No, we say "you don't know, so you're ignorant."
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, that's all. And no one is telling
you to shut up and believe. *Christians* (including self-ordained
"pastors" like you) do that. Science says, "present your evidence,"
which is pretty much what I've done here. If you have evidence,
present it.
The fact is, that while you claim that Creationists
only try to find holes in evolution, the reality is,
that you just spent your time trying to punch holes
in Creationism...
I did? I just responded to the first of many points that are alleged
"holes in evolution" and, among other things, asked for more
information. I guess you didn't bother to read the thread.
Punching holes in creationism is pretty difficult because creationism
is all but air-tight; but that's not a good thing. There is no
evidence for creationism and the harmonizations and excuses that
creationists make for the flaws in the "theory" take it outside the
realm of theory and science. Now, frankly, that's fine with me. I've
always been one of those "if that's what you want to believe" kinda
folks. Just don't call it science. It isn't. It isn't reality and it
isn't applicable in the real world. Evolution is. Deal.
...with silly lame insult...
What was the "insult?" That there's no evidence? If that's such an
insult and if it's so wrong, present your evidence.
...rather than proving macroevolution.
Tell me your definition of "macroevolution."
If macroevolution were true, you would have just
posted the proof and been done with it.
I would? I wasn't challenged to do that. I was challenged to answer
12 points that were alleged "holes" in evolutionary theory. Do you
want to debate the evidence for macroevolution?
Yet that is something that NEVER HAPPENS.
Since macroevolution is a term that is used (in science) to refer to
changes in populations of organisms at or above the species level, the
fact is that macroevolution is relatively common.
Prove macroevolution. You can't. And don't try
to turn the tables. I am RESPONDING to YOUR
claims.
No, you are not. The claim to which you are responding is that
creationism has no evidence, and you are not presenting evidence or
making any form of rebuttal. You've tried to turn the tables, already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 03:58:47 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 12:17:42 -0700, "Dave"
<horndw@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 11:46:14 -0700, "Dave"
<horndw@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Libertarius wrote:
1. Why are creationists unable to offer even one
single evidence for the first human having been
sculpted out of mud and made alive by blowing air
into his nose, as described in Genesis 2?
2. Why are creationists unable to offer any evidence
for the ET thus described? -- L.
Creationists have *no* evidence for creationism--none,
zero, zilch, nada. Never have had any.
That is a claim, not proof.
Actually, it's a statement of fact.
It is a claim, not proof.
If you have any evidence, by all means, present it.
Not my job. I'm not the one making claims.
So their strategy has been to try to find "holes"
in "evolutionary theory"
There are major holes.
Such as...?
You already know what they are and if you
so detest people simply punching holes in
macroevolution, then why do you ask for
the information?
(which they usually don't understand or misrepresent)
Yes, we know.
No, you don't.
Yes, we do.
Anyone who doesn't believe it, just
doesn't understand it.
Sound familiar?
Yes, I hear it all the time from evolutionists.
Christians use that all the time.
According to you, that would be proper,
if it is simply faith and nothing else. You
however, have a scientific burden of proof,
since you claim your belief is science.
Thus, it is by your own words that you
are forced into the position of providing
scientific proof.
But the fact is that, in the case of science,
it's true, and in the case of evolution, it's true.
You have just made a truth claim. Now prove it.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 04:32:50 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 10 Jul 2005 12:17:42 -0700, "Dave"
<horndw@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Creationists have *no* evidence for creationism--none,
zero, zilch, nada. Never have had any.
That is a claim, not proof.
Actually, it's a statement of fact.
It is a claim, not proof.
I can play this game, too: It's a statement of fact. If you want to
dispute it, present your evidence.
If you have any evidence, by all means, present it.
Not my job. I'm not the one making claims.
Oh, but you did.
So their strategy has been to try to find "holes"
in "evolutionary theory"
There are major holes.
Such as...?
You already know what they are...
The strategy of a coward: "You already know." No, I don't know. I
don't read minds, especially those as shallow as yours. Now, you
obviously had something in mind when *you* made *your* claim (see
above...are you sure you didn't make any claims?) about the holes.
Tell me what you think they are.
...and if you so detest people simply punching holes
in macroevolution...
Nobody's done that yet! They've only claimed that they are there. At
least Nymm (sp?} *tried* by giving me a list. You haven't even done
*that*.
...then why do you ask for the information?
I'm asking *you* to support *your* claim.
Look, I know about you. You're an ignorant, arrogant ***** who pops
around trying to play these little games while hiding behind a phony
religious credential, "pastor," but I don't play. Either present your
evidence or shut the hell up.
(which they usually don't understand or misrepresent)
Yes, we know.
No, you don't.
Yes, we do.
Fine. Show me.
Anyone who doesn't believe it, just
doesn't understand it.
Sound familiar?
Yes, I hear it all the time from evolutionists.
I hear it all the time from fundamentalists. The difference is that
evolutionists can present evidence for evolution. It's not complete
and it's not perfect because *it's* *science*, and science, being a
human construct, is inherently flawed--so is religion, actually.
Christians use that all the time.
According to you, that would be proper,
if it is simply faith and nothing else.
I don't think it's *ever* proper, so I'll decide what's "according to"
me.
You however, have a scientific burden of proof,
since you claim your belief is science.
Thus, it is by your own words that you
are forced into the position of providing
scientific proof.
There is no such thing as "scientific proof," and you've been told that
before.
But the fact is that, in the case of science,
it's true, and in the case of evolution, it's true.
You have just made a truth claim. Now prove it.
What, exactly, do you expect me to "prove?"
By the way, where's the rest of my post? Nothing to say to it, you
dishonest, arrogant *****? Let's put it back:
[Restored portion]
Typical evolutionist lie.
A lie is a deliberate deception. Show that I lied. Show that I *know*
something other than what I said, and that I said it, anyway.
"We're smart and you're dumb, so just shut up
and believe us".
"We know, and you don't." There's a difference. Sophists like you
like to try to turn that into rhetoric. "They say you don't know, so
you're stupid." No, we say "you don't know, so you're ignorant."
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, that's all. And no one is telling
you to shut up and believe. *Christians* (including self-ordained
"pastors" like you) do that. Science says, "present your evidence,"
which is pretty much what I've done here. If you have evidence,
present it.
The fact is, that while you claim that Creationists
only try to find holes in evolution, the reality is,
that you just spent your time trying to punch holes
in Creationism...
I did? I just responded to the first of many points that are alleged
"holes in evolution" and, among other things, asked for more
information. I guess you didn't bother to read the thread.
Punching holes in creationism is pretty difficult because creationism
is all but air-tight; but that's not a good thing. There is no
evidence for creationism and the harmonizations and excuses that
creationists make for the flaws in the "theory" take it outside the
realm of theory and science. Now, frankly, that's fine with me. I've
always been one of those "if that's what you want to believe" kinda
folks. Just don't call it science. It isn't. It isn't reality and it
isn't applicable in the real world. Evolution is. Deal.
...with silly lame insult...
What was the "insult?" That there's no evidence? If that's such an
insult and if it's so wrong, present your evidence.
...rather than proving macroevolution.
Tell me your definition of "macroevolution."
If macroevolution were true, you would have just
posted the proof and been done with it.
I would? I wasn't challenged to do that. I was challenged to answer
12 points that were alleged "holes" in evolutionary theory. Do you
want to debate the evidence for macroevolution?
Yet that is something that NEVER HAPPENS.
Since macroevolution is a term that is used (in science) to refer to
changes in populations of organisms at or above the species level, the
fact is that macroevolution is relatively common.
Prove macroevolution. You can't. And don't try
to turn the tables. I am RESPONDING to YOUR
claims.
No, you are not. The claim to which you are responding is that
creationism has no evidence, and you are not presenting evidence or
making any form of rebuttal. You've tried to turn the tables, already.
[End restored portion]
No clever quips? No way around these things, "pastor?"
I *proved* that it was you making claims, as well, and here we see that
you are too cowardly to answer for them. I can't teach evolution or
provide all of the evidence for evolution in a single post or even a
series of posts in a single day, but I have at least made a start.
*You*, playing your usual games of selective snippage, ducked a very
simple challenge: If you have evidence, present it. You didn't
bother.
You're gonna be a slam dunk, "pastor." Welcome to the cross hairs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence matters II |
10 Jul 2005 06:37:27 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 14:32:50 -0700, "Dave"
<horndw@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Creationists have *no* evidence for creationism--none,
zero, zilch, nada. Never have had any.
That is a claim, not proof.
Actually, it's a statement of fact.
It is a claim, not proof.
I can play this game, too: It's a statement of fact. If you want to
dispute it, present your evidence.
The typical evolutionist game. Claim that
Creationism is garbage and that evolution
is a fact and when challenged, claim it is
the other person's responsibility.
...then why do you ask for the information?
I'm asking *you* to support *your* claim.
I didn't make a claim, son. I responded
to your claim. But you knew that.
If evolution is so easily proved, why do
you continue to dodge me?
Look, I know about you. You're an ignorant, arrogant ***** who pops
around trying to play these little games while hiding behind a phony
religious credential, "pastor," but I don't play. Either present your
evidence or shut the hell up.
And this folks, is the premier showing
of the entirety of the evolutionists
argument for evolution.
They claim it's a fact and that creationists always
dodge requests for proof and then when they
make a truth claim, as demonstrated below,
they pretend that the creationist is the one who
made the claim and then do the very same thing
that they claim the creationist is guilty of and this
is the evidence they offer for their position.
They claim that all creationists do, is try to punch
holes in evolution and they claim to hate that
about creationists.
They make a truth claim, that evolution is a fact,
unlike creationism.
When someone responds to their claim, they
demand that the creationist try to punch holes
in evolution. The very thing they say we shouldn't
be doing.
Then they claim that the creationist is the one
playing a game.
Can you say, "hypocrite"?
But the fact is that, in the case of science,
it's true, and in the case of evolution, it's true.
You have just made a truth claim. Now prove it.
What, exactly, do you expect me to "prove?"
See what I mean, folks? He claimed that
what he believes is true. That is a "truth claim".
That puts the burden of proof on him, especially
since I didn't make any claims. I responded
to his claim. Now, when this is pointed out
to him, he wishes to pretend that he has no idea
what it is that he should be proving.
Gee, maybe it's the same thing you said
was true and is a fact? DUH!
The fact is, if someone actually didn't know
what they should be proving, then does it
make sense for them to claim that it is true?
<chuckle>
You made a truth claim. You even used the
word, "truth". Can you back it up, or not?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
