[B. Rabbit]

Also note that the differences between humans are so small and so inconsequential such as eye color, hair color, skin color, etc. that they have no relevance to anything meaningful (except to racists which evolutionists certainly are).

Again, you are a hypocrite. You get so strung up on any attack made upon you yet you have the audacity to say that all evolutionists are racists.

As to other responses you have had to me, I follow your argument and respond with my opinions. You claim that I "need a course in reading comprehension". This is something you often do. You say (paraphrasing)"and anybody who goes back and reads through our conversation would know that you are an idiot, and I am a genius." You know full well that nobody is going to go through and read all of that, so you think you win.

This is a summary on what exchanged between us:

1. You said that the universe has too many variable set in just the right way for the conditions on earth to sustain life. Therefore, there must be a creator.

2. I said that arguing about the improbability of something occurring after the fact is moot. I asked you to pick up a rock, and after you did I was amazed at how you picked up that one rock. Out of all the rocks in the world, you picked up that one rock. It is a improbability of astronomical proportions. But what good is that? I am arguing about the improbability of random events after the fact. It does us no good.

3. Then you said that it is different because a rock is just a rock, and has no purpose or specificity.

4. I said that I can make a rock have purpose and specificity. A sharp one can help me crack a nut or kill an animal.

5. Then you bring in a statment about the difference between artwork and rocks. How artwork is about invoking a feeling and impressing somebody. Now remember gore, this whole argument is about debating the improbability of something (rocks or universes) after the fact. So I make the connection that you are saying that the universe (like a piece of art) is not random and has been designed to invoke a feeling or impress somebody.

Read back through it if you must, this is quite obvious. I am not going to let you say "you need a reading comprehension course" without making you own up to your lies here.

Now I could be wrong, I am nothing but a dumb, racist evolutionist.

[gore3000]

Also note that the differences between humans are so small and so inconsequential such as eye color, hair color, skin color, etc. that they have no relevance to anything meaningful (except to racists which evolutionists certainly are).-me-

Again, you are a hypocrite. You get so strung up on any attack made upon you yet you have the audacity to say that all evolutionists are racists.

Evolution is racist. It denies that all humans are children of God and asserts that some are more 'advanced' than others. In fact it asserts that there is a biological hierarchy of species and that humans are part of that hierarchy. So yes, racism is integral to evolutionary theory.

. Then you bring in a statment about the difference between artwork and rocks. How artwork is about invoking a feeling and impressing somebody. Now remember gore, this whole argument is about debating the improbability of something (rocks or universes) after the fact. So I make the connection that you are saying that the universe (like a piece of art) is not random and has been designed to invoke a feeling or impress somebody.

You keep repeating something which is not true, read the first sentence by me below, it says that it is absurd to say that the purpose of the Universe or the Grand Canyon is to awe us. I say it very clearly. That you continue to insist that I said what I did not say even after it has been pointed out to you gives a strong implication of dishonesty on your part:

To: B. Rabbit

There is design to art, there is no design to the Grand Canyon in the same sense. It did not arise to impress those looking at it. A painting is designed to convey a thought, a feeling, the Grand Canyon while it may awe those who look at it was not designed to provide the view but just to get water from one place to another.-me-

You're making yourself very suspect in my eyes. Backtracking to your original argument about the universe being like a work of art and melding it to the above response, you are saying that the universe is designed to convey a thought or feeling and to impress those looking at it? This is what you're saying? Absurd.

Yes it is totally absurd to say that the purpose of the Universe or the Grand Canyon is just for us to look at it and be awed. You certainly need a course in reading comprehension and no honest person that reads my statement above would think I said that. Seems that not being able to disprove my statements you try to twist them around. A very dishonest form of argument.
1238 posted on 12/28/2002 8:38 PM PST by gore3000