Posted on 12/30/2008 3:42:31 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Information scientist, author and evangelist, Dr Werner Gitt, a close friend of CMI, told us that on 23 October 2008 he was subjected to the most strident opposition he had ever encountered...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Who knows?
Talk to cm. He’s the one in a tailspin over it. Maybe he can provide the details.
You don't have to explain it. Lots of people can read code. But maybe not your code though, if it happens to be poorly conceived, illogical, spaghetti-ish, or just plain embarrassingly bad.
What programming languages do you know?
You’re close, a few of the details are wrong though.
My Uncle was attending www.gud.doctor.school.bf.net centered in Ouagadougu Burkina Faso. One day, in 2004, the site was hit with a Denial of Service attack while he was posting on a class message board and he was unable to log out. For eight days he and his fellow classmates tried everything in their power to escape, closing browsers, task manager, powering down, even unplugging the unit, but when they powered back up, they were still logged in.
The State Department working in conjunction with the CIA traced the attack to a group of cyber-terrorists working from a server farm in Turpan Northwestern China. A group of specially trained geeks in CIA’s employ was eventually able to end the siege and free the students after eight harrowing days.
The Mathew Broderick vehicle “War Games” (MGM 1983) was based directly on this incident, and my Uncle was played by a young Gary Bisig who later went on to star in two episodes of The Scarecrow and Mrs. King where he met the dazzling Martha Smith (Francine Desmond) who became my Aunt.
Please post evidence to back your claim.
I will do no such thing. Good DAY sir!
I will reply to you via PM.
I'll just keep pointing out the fact that you are so careful to avoid; that evolution is based on the assumption of philosophical naturalism.
If telling that lie is all you've got then go with it. Anybody that can google up the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism will know it's a lie in short order.
If telling your lie is all you've got, then go with it.
"Anybody that can google up the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism will know it's a lie in short order."
Anybody can understand what I present as the truth and can tell in short order that what you say is a lie.
Once again, you misrepresent the issue in order to manufacture an argument. The issue is not the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Only an evolutionist with no arguments tries to make that an issue. It is committing the fallacy of equating methodological naturalism into the claim of philosophical naturalism that is the issue.
Evolution is based on philosophical naturalism, the belief that 'nature' is all there is and 'created' the diversity of life that we observe. That is based on the logical fallacy described above. If evolution were based on methodological naturalism, then you would be able to point to some biological truth that could not have been supernaturally created. You cannot do that. Evolution is philosophically-based.
Creationists believe that life was created in distinct groups called kinds that were created with an inherent ability to adapt to various environments. The fact that this broad ability to adapt does exist is not evidence that it 'evolved'. This is the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' and is a concept that is difficult for evolutionists to grasp.
Evolutionists mischaracterize that broad ability to adapt as having spontaneously generated all observable life. That biology possesses this ability is not in dispute, only the origin of it. Natural or supernatural.
As I showed earlier, the belief that the ability to adapt has 'evolved' is based on the fallacies of 'affirming the consequent' and the 'fallacy of equivocation' for equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism.
The issue is philosophical in nature, not empirical.
You're wasting your time telling me your lies. I know better.
Are you upset because science doesn’t accept supernatural explanations for everything, or just the fossil record?
Drat. Well, at least I was close. Say hi to Martha/Francine for me!
ToE was an ancient pagan idea long before Darwin made it popular and relies on philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. If it relied on methdological naturalism, you would be able to point to some biological fact that could not have been supernaturally-created. You cannot do that. Evolution is philosophically-based.
"You're wasting your time telling me your lies. I know better."
You're wasting your time telling me your lies. I know better.
Source?
There are numerous speculations about evolution going back to the Greeks, even before Aristotle. As least one Greek said land animals descended from fish.
What Darwin contributed was a geologic time frame, evidence and a systematic treatment of selection. That and a direct analogy from animal and plant breeding by selection.
Are you upset because science accepts philosophical explanations for origins, or just the fossil record?
Why would I be upset about something that didn’t happen?
Why would you deny something that does happen?
This is "the theory of evolution". Riiiiiight.
Not sure. If it happens, I'll take notes and get back to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.