Replies

There is no, I mean absolutly, no way to argue with Blueman. I wrote page after page of refutations to his silly claims. Scientific refutations of his puesdoscientific claims. Even pages of refutations of his three word "NO IT DOESN'T" posts. The best that can be done is set the evidence forward and let people laugh at his innane ramblings. Anyone listening to these posts go out and read the web pages for his idol BEHE than read the real science that refutes this stupidity. Make up your own mind but please don't just listen to what blueman spouts here.

To: f.Christian

Sorry this took awhile to respond too christmas functions drew my attention. What do I base my life on? What am I required to base it on? My life doesn't need a base outside of myself to be fullfilled. Even if i didn't base my life on rational thought I would still not need a basis to be complete. You seem to need the support of a mythology to help you overcome life's problems I do not. Your life may not be complete without a savior to fill you with hope. I need no false hope I am complete unto myself. Even if every man woman and child on this earth believed in Christ I would have no need. I do not need the consensus of the community.

I search for rational truth because that is where reality resides. Truth is not subjective, truth is not objective, and Truth is not subject to the varied Mythologies of this Planet many of these mythologies being much older than the one you embrace. Truth is absolute. That is why in the search for an absolute truth you must often throw off the weak beliefs of degenrate religion or even the hard won beliefs gained from personal insight. Truth cares for none of that.

God is not truth God is a crutch for those to weak to cut away the dead limbs, shoot the sick dog, or take that first unaided step into the light of reason.

47 posted on 12/22/2002 3:46 PM PST by Sentis

To: Sentis

I thought so!

48 posted on 12/22/2002 3:50 PM PST by f.Christian

There is no, I mean absolutly, no way to argue with Blueman. I wrote page after page of refutations to his silly claims.

Correction - you wrote page after page of ATTEMPTED refutations of my posts. The reason you gave up was that you were unable to back up your claims when I challenged you to do so in Post# 988 where I challenged you to give proof of evolutionary transformations and disprove the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, you were also unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 989 to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, and you were unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 991 to show detailed proof contradicting Behe's statement in post #984 that the eye spot could not have evolved as Darwin had claimed.

Seems to me that it is I who should be saying that you are disregarding the strong proofs against evolution which have been presented to you and which you are unable to refute.