|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 15, 2006 12:53:01 GMT -5
LarryFlint,
I am not being fecisious, and I am not angry. You seem to think you know everything. Everywhere something is posted, whether by me, or someone else (I dont follow many of the threads here) you seem to be able to right a book on it. The funny thing is, your speculations make no difference. Your syllogism debate was rediculous as your premises both came from a make believe world. This is just as rediculous. You are indeed blinded. You are so interested in sounding smarter than anyone else you fail to notice the truth, "the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge." Your ever changing science has no appeal to me because a month from no everything I learn will be entirely different anyway. It is nothing more than the devils scheme to keep you blinded.
I am not in college, I am not a plagerist (HSTN) and you are all hell-bound, stinking sinners. I say that lovingly. If the preaching of the gospel is foolishness to you, you are perishing. "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness".
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 15, 2006 17:34:17 GMT -5
...at least you put it in quotes, instead of pretending it was your words.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 15, 2006 17:40:48 GMT -5
you are all hell-bound, stinking sinners. I say that lovingly. Right, I can see the love dripping off of everyone one of your words ... not. You have no love for us, don't lie. God doesn't like that.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 15, 2006 17:55:03 GMT -5
Actually, Evan, you seem to think I know everything. I would never claim such a thing. You don't appreciate it when I write well documented replies? You would fault me for being well read and articulate? Here's the thing. You subscribe to a world view that claims to have an answer for everything. You claim that your interpretation of the bible is the infallible truth as delivered by the one true God. But when you are confronted with worldly facts and reason, you are unable to reconcile your religion's infallible truths with the truths revealed by earthly science and reason. You are only able to support your religious worldview when you are allowed to misrepresent science with straw man arguements. When you encounter someone like me who is unwilling to accept those misrepresentations ... your last resort is to stick your fingers in your ears and run away.
My syllogism holds true in the real world. Have I defined omnipotence incorrectly? Have I defined omnibenevolence incorrectly? Am I wrong to assume that an imperfect creation is unnecessarily cruel because it ultimately leads to sin and death? Am I wrong when I say that Eve could only be tempted if she were imperfect? Is my logic flawed? No. My conclusions are sound. You are the one living in a fantasy world. The ugly truth stares you right in the face and you cannot do anything to refute it. All you can do is deny the truth and blame the messenger.
Science doesn't appeal to you because it is dynamic? I'm sorry, but this is an inescapable fact. It is a good thing that science is dynamic. If scientific theories could not be proven wrong, then we might still believe the sun and planets revolve around a flat earth. Ever changing scientific theories produce everything we take for granted today. God didn't create your computer, men did. Men created the vaccines, antibiotics and medicines which keep you well, it produced the crops and livestock which keep you well fed and the technology which makes your life easy ... and we have science to thank for all of that. Now, does it bother you that the discipline of thought which has made your world safer and more dignified than the world of Christ does not seem to agree with the word of Christ?
I'm not blind Evan. I could probably argue your side of the arguement better than you do. Believe me. I understand what Christianity is about. I understand its strengths and I know how to hide its weaknesses. I would probably make a great priest, if I believed in God. Thing is, I don't claim to know the truth, Evan. I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that men share a common ancestor with the apes. All I can do is call bullsh*t when I see it and support what I find to be true as best as I can see it. You, OTOH, claim to know the truth but you don't know how to defend it against even a modest attack. Who would you trust, Evan? One of us has an open mind, Evan, and it isn't you.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 15, 2006 19:04:19 GMT -5
larryflint,
Short answer: Yes, but probably not.
Thanks for responding.
I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 15, 2006 19:07:55 GMT -5
.the problem with ALL of the fundies on this board is that they speak on topics they know nothing about, or what they do know comes from a christian apologist. oi.
You are being unfair here.
I have scientific qualifications and I do know this topic very well.
As a matter of interest do you?
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 15, 2006 19:10:56 GMT -5
you are all hell-bound, stinking sinners. I say that lovingly.
Right, I can see the love dripping off of everyone one of your words ... not. You have no love for us, don't lie. God doesn't like that.
What's more loving to tell the truth or to lie when someone's eternal destiny is at stake?
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 15, 2006 23:39:29 GMT -5
when said in a loving way. when said withOUT insults. When it's the truth being said.
You all have a false love, one where you easily say "i love all" without meaning it. Saying and feeling is two different things. Its also lying when done. I hope y'all repented after you said "I say that lovingly"
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 16, 2006 1:45:49 GMT -5
larryflint, Short answer: Yes, but probably not.
Thanks for responding. I rest my case. OOOOOHHHHH, SNAP! You just pwned me dawg. . I guess now that you so thoroughly demonstrated the truth of creation, I should give my heart to Jeehzus and develop a nationwide science curricula based on biblically sound principles. Which local church should I join, or should I just tithe directly to you, Doc? [/sarcasm] Really. Seriously. This is your arguement? What kind of mental midget are you? Do you suppose that evolutionists will just whither and die if they correctly admit evolution could be refuted? Do you expect me to disappear into some alternate dimension like Mr. Mxyzptlk because you "tricked" me into this devastating admission with your awesome wit and guile? And I suppose you'd just like to ignore the rest of my post where I demonstrated that the premises of evolution hold true? I suppose you would like to keep swinging away the stalks of evolution in natural history and continue ignoring that big, nasty scientific taproot. Since you've decided to tout your science credentials, please demonstrate how intelligent design meets the criteria for Popperian falsifiability. Or do you propose a different scientific method? Which scientific method do you think scientists actually use? Could intelligent design be held to the same scientific standards that you would use if you were designing a spaceship or researching a cure for cancer? What are the specific premises and conclusions of intelligent design theory? How would you test a scientific claim about intelligent design? What would be the null and alternative hypotheses for such a test? Would you use randomized tests or observational studies? What kinds of evidence would support intelligent design? Biochemical? Genetic? Cellular? Ecological? If you could demonstrate the "truth" of intelligent design, would it spark any interesting metaphysical questions or paradoxes? Now, I'll admit that I'm an inveterate sinner. A drinker ... fornicator ... doper ... sodomite ... thief ... masterbator ... liar ... gas huffer ... and overall degenerate. But maybe, just maybe ... do you suppose you're the only poster here with a post graduate science education?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 16, 2006 16:08:00 GMT -5
doc h, your degrees--invalid until i see a copy of it for myself--do not prevent you from speaking/teaching from a biased point of view. i think that you will even admit that you are a christian, first, and foremost. so, really, your words are meaningless until you dispel your christian world-view that is preventing you from thinking rationally.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 17, 2006 1:35:08 GMT -5
when said in a loving way. when said withOUT insults. When it's the truth being said.
You all have a false love, one where you easily say "i love all" without meaning it. Saying and feeling is two different things. Its also lying when done. I hope y'all repented after you said "I say that lovingly" Ah, so now you are judging my heart.
That's really slick from someone who claims we must be tolerant and non-judgemental.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 17, 2006 1:51:03 GMT -5
do you suppose you're the only poster here with a post graduate science education? I don't believe my post about science qualifications was addressed to you. I never claimed that you know nothing about the topic. The point I was trying to make is that some of us creationists have studied the matter very carefully and that we also have a scientific background. In other words what I am saying is that you can be a Scientist and a Creationist at the same time which is something ALL evolutionists seem to deny. FYI: Werener von Braun, the German WWII rocket scientist, who became the father of America's space program and first director of NASA said: "One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be DESIGN and purpose behind it" He also said: "My experiences with science led me to God...Prove the existence of God...? Must we really light a candle to see the sun..." Oh, well just another mad scientist I guess. Here's another one for you: Frank Borman, NASA astronaut after his return from the Apollo 8 mission was asked by a reporter whether he had seen God out there. He replied, "No...but I saw His evidence" I thought you had to be a scientist to become a NASA astronaut? Oh, well just another nutter I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 17, 2006 1:53:10 GMT -5
invalid until i see a copy of it for myself-
Tut, tut...are you calling me a liar?
You know that ALL liars shall end up in the Lake of Fire don't you?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 17, 2006 11:45:15 GMT -5
no, i am not calling you a liar, but pointing out that any man can call himself a doctor. however, if you note, it is only proven when a patient walks into an examination room (or the lobby) for the first time. i know most doctors frame their degree as evidence of the position they hold--much like the ranks of someone in the military is dictated by the stars, bars, and medals/ribbons on this sleeve.
p.s. 'lake of fire' is an exaggerated jewish myth compared to reality. hell, 'sheol' in hebrew, is considered a place of undescribable torment. in reality, the most despised and despaired of things was a dumping grounds for dead beggars and the diseased. the bodies were burned. this is 'sheol', or hell. however, biblically speaking, regardless of man's nature to exaggerate, hell is more likely a place in which there is total separation from god. this is darkness and rotting in the ground. this is nothingness.
ironically enough, this is exactly what most scholars and persons in the medical arena believes to happen when a person die. your life ends at the grave. i think the religious community simply stole the idea and exaggerated it to convert 'lost souls.'
silly christians and their parlor tricks.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 17, 2006 15:11:58 GMT -5
do you suppose you're the only poster here with a post graduate science education? I don't believe my post about science qualifications was addressed to you. I never claimed that you know nothing about the topic. The point I was trying to make is that some of us creationists have studied the matter very carefully and that we also have a scientific background. In other words what I am saying is that you can be a Scientist and a Creationist at the same time which is something ALL evolutionists seem to deny. FYI: Werener von Braun, the German WWII rocket scientist, who became the father of America's space program and first director of NASA said: "One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be DESIGN and purpose behind it" He also said: "My experiences with science led me to God...Prove the existence of God...? Must we really light a candle to see the sun..." Oh, well just another mad scientist I guess. Here's another one for you: Frank Borman, NASA astronaut after his return from the Apollo 8 mission was asked by a reporter whether he had seen God out there. He replied, "No...but I saw His evidence" I thought you had to be a scientist to become a NASA astronaut? Oh, well just another nutter I guess. Borman was an air force test pilot, not a scientist, before his career at NASA. Borman likely had some basic knowledge of physics and aeronautics principles, but it seems unlikely that he would have any training or experience in science research. When Borman talks about evidence, he is not speaking as a scientific authority ... he is offering a subjective opinion that is no more valid than a janitor's opinion. Von Braun was a Nazi and a member of the SS. He recieved a Ph.D. in physics or aerospace engineering in 1934. Obviously he would have experience in scientific research, but no explicit experience in biology or even theoretical astronomy. If you read von Braun's quote you will see no explicit reference to scientific reason ... again, he is offering up a subjective opinion ... not a scientific position. You've made a cute appeal to authority. I'm sure you could find 100 other opinions from people with scientific backgrounds ... unfortunately all that gets you is a pile of theological opinions from scientific authorities. What you will never find is a scientific theory concerning intelligent design. That's because creation science is an oxymoron. Epistomologically it cannot exist. I notice you made no attempt to answer my specific questions about the scientific principles behind intelligent design. No premises, no hypotheses, no conclusions. Nothing but informal fallacies to prop it up. Please accept the fact that you cannot make scientific claims about the supernatural. Quit denying theology's value as an intellectual discipline by foresaking theological thought for hopeless attempts at scientific validation.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 18, 2006 10:34:20 GMT -5
LarryFlint,
You said above that me "created" my computer and what not, you are mistaken. Man made this by combining material that were already in existence. They simply reorganized material that was preexistent. I am finished with your silly syllogism because you cant seem to grasp what I am trying to say.
But in regards to irreducible complexity, and Micheal Behe, you claim to have a better grasp upon the concept then the man who practically fathered it. tell me how a cillia or even a flagellum can be made by darwinian gradualism. It cannot be done, therefore you resort to insulting my intelligence and then thinking it strange when I tell you the truth about the state of your soul. Forgive me for any offence, that was not my motive. Despite what the darkened understanding of HSTN says, and the trollish remarks that do no good for these threads, I said that out of live. Blatent honesty is more loving than deceitfullness wouldnt you agree?
You say humans are not ireducibly complex, and so they are'nt. Does that matter? If evolution cannot account for EVERYTHING than it accounts for NOTHING. The same is true with creation. If creation cannot account for everything CREATED, not made (using preexisting materials), than it accounts for nothing. The tragedy is you place heavy scrutiny upon creationism but none upon evolution. A proper way to find truth is to place the same rigorous testing to all theories and come to a conclusion that way. Try entering into scientific study with no pre-suppositions and see what you find.
You compare creationism with evolution thereby seeing everything through evolutionary lenses. Bias is bad science. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 18, 2006 10:58:22 GMT -5
Dude, practice what you preach. Like you don't look at everything else with a bias too.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 18, 2006 11:33:25 GMT -5
No, Michael Behe is NOT the father of irreducible complexity. These arguements have existed since before Darwin. Behe's mousetrap example is identical to William Paley's watchmaker analogy from the book _Natural Theology_, published fifty years before Darwin published _Origin of Species_. This is just another case of everything old becoming new again. You believe Behe is the father of this movement because everything you know about the movement comes from Behe. The fact is, Behe's ideas have historical precidents in holistic science, which Behe represents poorly. Whether Behe knows it or not, some of his ideas are more than 200 years old and they have been refuted time and time again.
Obviously, Evan, men did not "create" silicon atoms out of thin air to produce your computer. Still, designing a computer involves a little bit more than "rearranging pre-existing material". The computer was created in someone's mind before the first prototype was assembled. Now, if you want to believe every great invention in history was divinely inspired, be my guest ... but it's still pretty silly. I mean, if you're going to lay credit at the feet of God for all man's inventions ... then that would imply that God invented: dild0es, vibrators, c0ck rings, behind plugs, crack pipes, bongs, liquor stills, recreational drugs, guns, knives, bombs, etc. I'm sure God thanks you for giving credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 18, 2006 11:58:31 GMT -5
You say humans are not ireducibly complex, and so they are'nt. Does that matter? If evolution cannot account for EVERYTHING than it accounts for NOTHING. The same is true with creation. If creation cannot account for everything CREATED, not made (using preexisting materials), than it accounts for nothing. The tragedy is you place heavy scrutiny upon creationism but none upon evolution. A proper way to find truth is to place the same rigorous testing to all theories and come to a conclusion that way. Try entering into scientific study with no pre-suppositions and see what you find. You compare creationism with evolution thereby seeing everything through evolutionary lenses. Bias is bad science. Think about it. [italics added for emphasis] Evan, you say if evolution cannot account for everything, then it accounts for nothing. That is an informal fallacy called a false dilemma. Look at what biological evolution claims: As a consequence of random mutation and differing survival or reproduction of inheritible types, species will change and diverge over time to create biological diversity. The premises of biological evolution require: #1. living organisms exist, #2. living organisms have heritible material which produce natural variations in phenotypes, #3. the heritible material (i.e. genes) will undergo random, periodic changes (i.e. random mutations) and #4. changes in the heritible material will manifest as changes in phenotype that lead to differing survival or reproduction. Biological evolution itself cannot explain the origins of life itself, the origins of heritible material in living organisms or the origins of random mutation. By creating this false dilemma, you have almost created question begging epithets which presuppose an intelligent creator. Your false dilemma introduces the impossible requirement that biological evolution must explain the origins of biological phenomena required in its own premises. This is a logically unsound criticism against biological evolution. You assume that I am comparing creation to evolution and that I place no scrutiny on evolution itself. That is incorrect. I compare both creation and evolution to the philosophical standards which define science. Epistemologically, biological evolution is a scientific theory while creationism is not. Again, you're assuming that I do not understand your position. I do understand your position, I just don't agree with it. I'm sure that if someone believes God exists, then creation is a very satisfying answer. The thing is, I don't believe in God and, as I have demonstrated fifty times already, CREATION IS NOT SCIENCE. When I state that creation is not science, it is not because I suppose biological evolution is the true scientific answer ... it is just an honest reflection of the nature of science and the nature of the creation arguement. Creation is a theological argument, not a scientific one. This is a fact and thousands of qualified theologians would agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 18, 2006 14:03:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 18, 2006 14:10:22 GMT -5
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. ooh. family guy.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 18, 2006 21:31:53 GMT -5
this is exactly what most scholars and persons in the medical arena believes to happen when a person die.
Most?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 19, 2006 9:32:03 GMT -5
well, yeah, and then there are nuts like you...
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 19, 2006 12:01:44 GMT -5
There are always exceptions, or minorities who always go down the crazy path. Like there will be a point in history when EVERYONE agrees on the same thing. Even you "Christians" argue amongst yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 19, 2006 17:14:28 GMT -5
Wrong, cervyy. Remember, anyone who doesn't hold THEIR view isn't a TRUE christian. Like folex.
*rolls his eyes*
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 20, 2006 16:29:31 GMT -5
what is a true christian, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 20, 2006 17:26:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 20, 2006 21:13:27 GMT -5
great site.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 20, 2006 23:11:55 GMT -5
That site said burn X-men comics!! Dear God, they are truly MAD!!!
I think I died a little inside ...
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 21, 2006 17:09:54 GMT -5
combic books turn people into homosexual raping abortion doctoring serial killers! praise jesus for canned corn and salvation in a hallmark card!!!!
|
|