Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Obviously - that's why you all needed to rely on a hit squad to attack me personally and parrot it yourselves instead of talking substance and is why you continue to do so. Your position is unsupportable and indefensable or you'd have done it by now.
"Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect" - Star Trek II
Your disputants on this particular point maintain that the "not-an-Ark" site is more than circumstantial evidence.
I don't know since I didn't click on that link if the references cited therein are "peer-reviewed" but they would in some sense be "forensic" -- I'm not quite sure if they'd be treated as "hearsay" or how "chain of custody" issues would be resolved.
Would it help explaining to Californiajones that the posting of a website counter to his expectations is not just (so to speak) "We'll, you've got a website, and here's mine, so we're EVEN !" TM.
Perhaps a discussion of the importance of peer review, of Occam's razor, what have you--that the scientific approach is specifically used in order to WEED OUT things which sound good but can't be substantiated, or which may even be false...even with the best of intentions?
Cheers!
Christianity founded most of the sciences. Don't take your IQ out and dust it off much do you. Just because a bunch of heathens with an anti-God agenda and a nutjob ideology took over the sciences doesn't make your nonsense true.
Christianity and Judaism have a long history supported by archeology, science, etc that bolster their positions. What do you have? Endless theories derived from the imaginations of a nutjob racist. Bully for you.
As for taking the Bible literally - how would you know. And the word isn't literally as it happens, it is "seriously". And that is your problem.
Begging the question.
Christianity and Judaism have a long history supported by archeology, science, etc that bolster their positions. What do you have? Endless theories derived from the imaginations of a nutjob racist. Bully for you.
Strawman + argumentum ad ignorantiam
As for taking the Bible literally - how would you know. And the word isn't literally as it happens, it is "seriously". And that is your problem.
So meaningless as to defy classification
100% Logical Fallacy. Standard CRIDer "argumentation."
Oh, wait, they don't.
Evolution is science -- just like Physics, Astronomy, Math, etc. Creationism is mythology -- just like fantasy, theology, fiction, etc.
They do teach Creationism -- but in the proper forum.
But who set in motion the replication and incredible dna code that the body uses which is more complicated than a computer code? It had to be some intelligence.
THAT is where evolution intersects with Christianity.
Most of us believe that God set in motion the fabulous workings of the universe. Many an athiest scientist has arrived at the conclusion that a wonderful architect operates OUTSIDE of the obesrvable universe.
The more we learn of physical law and history, the more we stand in awe of God and His works. The fact He set this all in motion and allows it to progess unimpeded is something that we can wonder at and hopefully someday ask about when we are called Home.
This is a complete misstatement of the Evolutionary theory. Things do NOT "spontaneously create themselves." They react to their environment incrementally to varying degrees (N.B. This is a MASSIVE simplification of the TTOE -- I have to dumb it down for people who aren't familiar with it.
Lying by misrepresentation does not help your cause
And I'm saying that these purported evolutionary processes would naturally relate to the process of creating something out of nothing, i.e. creation itself.
Again, a blatant misrepresentation. You should read up on the Evolutionary theory before you comment on it. Your assertions are on par with a child's.
It is Evos who claim to have deconstructed a creative force of the universe; therefore they need to prove it by reconstructing or creating something. So until an Evolutionist can create something out of nothing -- they can talk all they want.
Please point to one aspect of the evolutionary theory that supports this assertion. You continue to post meaningless and unsupported nonsense.
All this talk about Darwin never talking about God per se, or declaiming the Bible, or that one can believe in the God of the Bible, just divorce Him from what He said or what is written -- just leads me to believe that EvoThink it a religious belief in an of itself -- an anti Judeo Christian belief.
There is nothing in TTOE that speaks to or against God. Your assertion is like saying that if we don't believe that angels hold airplanes aloft we must therefore not believe in God.
However categorized, Evolution is a cold and pleasantless belief -- they lose the grandeur and beauty of Creation because they disbelieve that a loving and intelligent God might have simply made the earth and all its potential goodness for our good pleasure. I think about that every time I eat a piece of ripe fruit or have fallen in love. God made it good. For us. Very cool.
See my earlier post of the wonder of God and how His work is revealed in the natural Universe.
"Only God can make a tree" means something. But it is clearly too complex for you supporters of the {poof} MAGIC school of thought.
Every person I admire out of history believed in a Christian God. Lincoln, Washington, Tolstoy, Frank Capra, Reagan.. To me, that is the mark of exalted intelligence. As to the men of history who have not believed in a Christian God -- Marx Nietzsche, Hitler Stalin Mao have left horrorshows of bloodshed in their swath.
So what? (your clumsy attempt at a Strawman argument is laughable). Many people who understand TTOE are also Christians. And we don't lie to move our agenda forward.
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Lies, deceit, and misrepresentation. All hallmarks of CRIDers. Yes, the fruits of your deception are the work of Satan and are on display for all to see. Satan delights in making the pious sin to prove their point.
You are spinning a story. One of you says it takes so long for breeds to spread that it's impossible to happen since the flood of Noah. Prior to that, one of you noted that it happened so recently and quickly in the case of dogs that people are amazed. Whatever is required to say to defend the current argument is the methodology. Busted in other words. So, yes, you do need to get your story straight.
And Creationists don't have to scramble over any "mounting" evidence. The evidence more often than not fits the Biblical model. I like to look to Egyptology a lot for examples of this and David Rohl is a good person to highlight in that regard. Rohl called the timelines and dating methodologies into Question using Egyptian evidences. In the doing, he exposes the faulty nature of traditional dating methodologies. And that, largely is already in question by those of us who don't accept assumptions associated with the methodologies as "reasonable". Reasonableness is determined by having a basis in reality for knowing whether something makes sense or not. If you've never seen an indy car do 400 miles per hour, it would not be reasonable to assume that it could do so. If you've seen one pushed to the redline to do 220, then it becomes unreasonable to assume they can go much faster because you know the care is redlining at 220 - which means the engine is near blowing. In other words, it takes the known to determine reasonableness. How then can one claim it reasonable to assume that 14C was remaining constant in the atmosphere when it isn't currently. How can one "reasonably assume that half-lives remain constant over time if you have no basis in knowledge as to whether such an assumption is reasonable or not. Assumptions like these are what technical dating methodologies largely rest upon. And in the end, they are gauged to something far less reliable - the geologic column. And there you find more assumptions which give you multiple assumptions upon which the technology now rests - none of which can be said to be reasonalble because you can't say how the layers of sediment were all deposited. You can guess; but, you can't say. You have to assume that too. Assume, assume, assume. And you've no basis in the long run to say any of the assumptions are truly reasonable. It isn't evidence that is mounting, it's assumption and theory based upon assumption that is mounting.
Right, and the guy that got the Redbaron was a beagle dog on a red dog-house.
Again, you are frantically misrepresenting the actual discussion, and you're doing it very transparently. Do you think that actually helps your credibility any?
No, I think I noted that I confused two posts earlier and corrected myself. And did it to the person who I confused the other with. Helps if you Keep up, son.
Yes, we know you can fling childish ridicule in all directions. Liberals do that as well. But the only target you hit is your own credibility. Why do you bother?
Heh. No comment. After the attempt by your side to hijack the thread and shut me up with vile assassinations of my person because you were all looking so bad, one can't help but laugh at your nonsense. Next.
That's what Michael Moore says about conservatives too, and for the same reasons.
Well, if you must delude yourself. I'm not the one having to do damage control here. All I have to do is point out what you're saying and damage control drones move into action.. lol. Dog breeds proliferated recently and so quickly it amazes people yet, they can't proliferate that quickly.. Don't need to say much more, just point to it.. lol.
Nonetheless, despite your bluster, I very frequently get thoughtful FreepMails from screen names I've never seen before
"I am Underwhelmed" - Erwin Ellmann
Please forgive my misposting of your name.
I have been on call since I got home tonight and have been FReeping between phone calls from work. I am a more than a little bushed, since my day starts at 7:00 am.
The last I heard "they" (the they that are doing an all-night development session) will either call me back or let me go to sleep.
Gracias a Dios to sleep I go! :) Midnight local time and I sill have to be in there 7 am local time.
All bluster and pride. - underwhelmed.
As for the answer, you had it last night. And it was a pretty well crafted answer if I do say so myself. Again, if the numbers hold up under scrutiny, I've no problem. Apparently they don't or you wouldn't have a problem with the answer. See how great that response becomes. I know you do, that's why you're mad and want a different answer.
When you are called home and have to give an answering to God for calling him a liar? Isn't that when he uses first, middle and last name... *snort* Good luck, er, sorry, luck don't work for that one..
Not begging the question, but making a starkly relevant point. Christians founded the branches and have no fear of them. Your bluster is just that, bluster. Scare tactics as it were. Michael Mooring the facts.
True... Walking on unfrozen water seems impossible.. maybe it ain't.. Physical reality might not be so physical after all.. it just depends on the reality your walking in..
If the willingness to die for one's beliefs is some kind of measure of the truth of those beliefs then we'd better all become moslems.
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.