Posted on 12/04/2009 9:55:41 PM PST by Gordon Greene
Not mutually exclusive subsets, either.
“You’d never know it considering the majority of the evolutionist’s comments on this forum.”
Is that whining I hear?
“If you think name calling gets you anywhere in a logical debate,”
Thin-skinned, and can’t take the same that you dish out.
The reason you should not respond, is that you have nothing of value to add.
CW,
So, some friends invite you to the party? Bet they made you bring the beer. The geeky guys always get the beer detail (wait, that could be any of the two of you).
“As an atheist, I don’t have a dog in the “who’s a real Christian” hunt. I simply thought you were making a math error.”
Good post. Again, honesty is important and some don’t have the desire or capability. I may be wrong about some things but I’m capable of admitting when I am. I don’t agree with you in probably any way but I can certainly respect your desire to have honest debate.
God bless (occupational hazard).
GG
Wait--geeky guys--Geeky Guys--GG
Yep--delusional projection!
“there is a very real possibility that GGG and GG are one in the same. If that is the case the average IQ of mankind just went up three points.....LOL”
(Insert snide response and gratuitous insult here)
Well, it's certainly not going to be interpreted as tongue in cheek after having been told by real Catholics in real life to my face the same thing.
Sorry, not buying your excuse today. Or any other day for that matter.
Your fighting the exclusion of the bible, prayer and creationism from science class.
“And it doesn’t matter how the tweak and manipulate the definition of the word *species*.”
How do you define a species?
You: “The difference is that my position can be influenced by reason where yours, as you admit, cannot.”
Me: “Actually - it is an “Escape from Reason” (ref Francis Schaeffer’s book by that name) to assert that God is not there and the claims of the Bible are not true....REASON demands the verdict that only an intelligent designer could create the intricate complexities of all we find in the universe.”
You: “And what evidence do you have that the Creator is your God and not, for example, Zeus?”
Me: “The Bible which archaeological discoveries have continued to find to be accurate in its historical record along with the historical certainty of the life of the person Jesus (of Nazareth/Christ),,,,just for a start.”
You: “There’s no more evidence of the divinity of Christ in the archeological record than there is for the Greek gods in the archeological investigations into Homer’s Troy.”
{Why did you do a LEAP saying I had said anything about the Bible giving evidence of the divinity of Christ when I did not even mention that subject? I spoke of the historical recoard of the MAN, the historical figure, named Jesus (of Nazareth/Christ = those are his other identifying names)
Now you say:”I haven’t asked for proof for the divinity of Christ. I have asked for evidence all along.”
Me - AGAIN my only reference to Jesus did not attempt to prove his divinity.....here - again - is what I said:
“Jesus (of Nazareth/Christ) - the main subject of the entire New Testament (and of course foretold in the Old Tesatment) - was a human being who lived and died - just as the Bible reports he did as attested to by non-Biblical sources such as Josephus, the jewish Historian.”
My additional explanatory comments since you seem to miss the plain meaning of what I wrote is this:
The EVIDENCE from the historical record (Josephus is not a Biblical writer) is that Jesus lived and died just exactly when the Bible says he lived and died, in the location the Bible reports he lived and died.
The non-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ life matches up with the Biblical accounts of the life of Jesus.
I said nothing (at that time) about proving or even giving evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ.,,,but you keep ignoring that fact.
Do you agree that Jesus did live in Israel at the time the Bible says he lived in the place the Bible says he lived?
Start back there.
It takes REASON to agree with that fact.
My statement (“There isn’t enough evidence to support any of the theories at present. Science will happily and honestly admit to that”) was about the origin of life and is, AFAIK, an accurate appraisal of the state of science on the subject. It was not about evolution.
Science admits it is wrong all the time and you know it. If it didn’t then we would still be riding horses, throwing spears and dying young.
There is an overwhelming proponderance of evidence to support evolutionary theory and it is indeed verifable.
Apologies. There I was thinking that everytime you answered my questions about what evidence you had for the creator being God or the divinity of that you might actually be trying to provide some.
I think that there is a whole heap of evidence to suggest that some of the comments attibuted to Jospehus are later insertions, maybe 4th C AD. However, I do tend to agree that and individual named Jesus probably lived in Galilee at the beginning of the first century, worked as a holy man and was put to death by the Romans/Jewish authorities.
I thought you were ignoring me. Whats the matter, can't get enough?
You don't really expect an answer do you? I aske what her for a definition of transitional species days ago and I'm still waiting. (But she continues to demand that I and others do her research for her....LOL
I’m hopeful. Maybe she’s still working on it. After all, creation ‘science’ hasn’t done much work in this area... in fact, it doesn’t seem to have done much work in any area.
You must be reading FR in some alternate universe. I find that most (in fact I believe all) evolutionists in these threads readily concede that there is, at least as yet, no remotely complete and satisfactory theory of the origin of life.
“Science” rarely admits to being wrong about anything.
You must also be reading science journals and science news in an alternate universe. In this one scientists are constantly searching for new and better theories and, on the accumulation of sufficient evidence, abandon superseded ones not only readily, but downright gleefully.
What world do you live in where science, schools, documentaries, the government and scientists do not claim that evolution theory is 100% verifiable?
Huh? You brought up, and Natufian was responding to, the issue of the origin of life:
And if you can conjure up an elaborate story about the way life came about[...]
Natufian essentially agreed with you -- that there is presently no sufficient basis to accept any naturalistic origin of life theory. Instead of taking "yes" for an answer, you abruptly switch the subject, and pretend Natufian was responding to a different issue.
The textbooks are written around it and and legislation is drafted on the premise.
If the premise is that science textbooks should include scientific theories that are objectively a part of science, and exclude supposed theories that have objectively failed to demonstrate scientific merit, or have been falsified, or whose proponents have actively shielded them from serious scientific testing and review in the first place, then, yeah. Of course.
If you actually believe that creationism is true, and evolution false, then you shouldn't want it any different. Because then, on what you should expect to be the inevitable triumph of creation theory, evolution could be, would be (and, that circumstance genuinely applying, should be) DROPPED AND EXCLUDED from textbooks and curricula.
If creationism is instead included, prior to achieving priority or parity on merit in the marketplace of scientific ideas, and therefore on the basis of a kind of intellectual affirmative action, then, even if evolution were disproven, we'd have to keep including it in textbooks on the same affirmative action basis.
Interestingly, creationists almost universally -- but only wrt evolution -- do reject the consequential competition of ideas option, which holds that ideas can and do fail, and that failed ideas should be excluded from heuristic presentations, or at least not be dishonestly presented as viable competitors to successful ideas. Instead -- but only wrt evolution -- they support the equal time, affirmative action, victimology/self esteem/identity group approach, which holds that if a significant identity group (e.g. fundamentalists) holds a strong opinion about an academic topic (e.g. evolution) then it is an attack on them and an assault on their self-esteem to teach a contrary view, and so you should instead teach "both sides," pretending they are alternatives, even if only one of those "sides" has objective academic standing.
This is fascinating because creationists, generally being conservative, tend to hold EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE view wrt to every other subject. When it comes to history, social studies, political science, sex education, or even science curricular with respect to topics like abortion and environmentalism, creationists support consequential competition of ideas, and reject the wishy-washy relativism of equal time and balanced treatment.
This struck me as notable years ago, when I used to sometimes watch or read about conservative Texas textbook activists Mel and Norma Gabler's testimony. I would cheer them on when they complained about Marilyn Monroe getting more space in American History texts than George Washington, but then watch them turn around and demand equal time for "creation science" on exactly the same philosophical grounds that feminists had demanded more time for Marilyn.
This oddity has convinced me that, on some psychological level, creationists don't really believe in creation, or disbelieve in evolution, as much as they think they do. If it were otherwise they would behave very differently from the way they do. They would not be eagerly attempting to establish the precedent that it is only "fair" to include "both" creation and evolution. First this represents an intellectual relativism which they do not accept as a general principle; and second they would hold out for defeating evolution on scientific merit, so that it would justifiably be excluded.
It's clear to me -- even if they don't admit it to themselves -- that most creationists know deep down that evolution is in fact a strong theory, and creationism a weak one.
“Whats the matter, can’t get enough?”
That would imply that you make some appreciable difference in my life/attitude/psyche. You’re such a goob your hard to ignore.
You are certainly provide entertainment value. Albeit, I liken it to the gruesome scenes on Friday the 13th where one has to look away and peer back through their fingers. True ignorance is a frightening thing!
I like you for the train-wreck you are.
The God of Creation as it’s stated in the Bible be with you and may he warm your fat Catholic buns this cold winter. (that’s an old Irish blessing I learned from a guy raised by wild ferrets in the wilds of Nantucket).
Do I have to explain what ignore means or were you lying to me again when you promised to ignore me. Maybe you just can't help yourself.
I agree with talk show host Dennis Prager when he says he prefers clarity to agreement.
As for myself, I have a small confession to make. In some arguments I have actually...
(drum roll, please)
admitted to making a mistake.
I know, I know. On the internet yet.
I don’t agree with you in probably any way but I can certainly respect your desire to have honest debate.
We both might be surprised at how much we agree on some things, social issues aside. While I'm not a social conservative, I'm very conservative on matters of economics, defense, and foreign affairs. Note that I always put a Heinlein quote in my tagline. (Which reminds me, time to put in a new one)
God bless (occupational hazard).
I always take a heartfelt blessing in the spirit in which it is given. Thank 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.