Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[RunningWolf]

You have a first amendment right to make silly statements, that is correct

CG...,, sigh. If nothing else you demonstrate this assertion to the 10 ⁿ exp. Well at least the silly statement component of that assertion, well okay its all silly.



Wolf

[metmom]

The possibility that things are actually beyond our understanding never seems to occur to anyone except scientists who spend their lives trying to understand things.

That is not true. Christians realise that there is an awful lot that is beyond their understanding but whenever they admit it they get ridiculed for believing in fariy tales and being *unscientific* and *anti-intellectual*. Christians are willing to take on faith the things they accept as beyond their comprehension in spite of that mockery.

Scientists have no corner on the intellectual market and are not the superior beings that they are constantly putting themselves forth as. As far as dichotomies, scientists are pretty good as putting those forth. Just question some currently held cherished scientific belief and watch what happens; like what happens on these threads all the time.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" CG...,, sigh. If nothing else you demonstrate this assertion to the 10 n exp. Well at least the silly statement component of that assertion, well okay its all silly."

Do you have something to add to the conversation? Do you also believe as he does that practicing Jews are really atheists because they reject Jesus? That was his contention, that only Christians are theists and everybody else are atheists. That's what you are aligning with.

Do you have anything to say about that? No, you don't have anything to add, as usual. Again, you look for the dumbest anti-evo posts and hitch your wagon to them.

[boycottmovies]

one more for our side. By the way, we've decided to take a trick from the Dems playbook, and have stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda? Anyone agree with this?

[grey_whiskers]

esscatology

Someone spelled it wrong, it should be "Esskaytology", viz:

Full Disclosure: Go Orioles, and Go Eat Esskay Franks! :-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

No. One more time: marriage is not a contract.

Don't you ever watch The Sopranos ?

(...or at least consider the Clintons' marriage ;-) )

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in an ark!

...talk about your Brokeback 'Mounting...
BTW, would they use the "Missionary Position" (being evolutionary artefacts, and all?)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The chemical process of evolution is that of DNA. If you know the chemical process that go into the of formation DNA then you know the chemical process at the heart of evolution. At its simplest, evolution is a change in the DNA that makes up a population.

H'mmm. And RNA viruses fit in where?

Full Disclosure : Better than a brontosaurus in an ark, see post 2396 this thread. Heh heh heh.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

For some strange reason this ominous designer only reuses code that's been inherited from previous versions but never code from other unrelated 'source code' which means that he has to "reinvent the wheel" quite often. In other words, if you look at the work of this "designer" you get a treelike structure whereas if you examine the way humans usually design things, you get more of a spider's web.

He must rely on Java or C++ and use a lot of class inheritance.
(Programmed with evolutionary algorithms no doubt? Or else much of the development was outsourced and written in Visual Basic to boot.)

(Ducking for cover, running for exits through a veritable hail of flying vegetables and other disreputable organic debris.)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

Imagine a pair of Brontosaurus on board.

My guess is they got wiped out with all the telephone sanitizers.

Full Disclosure: Where is that comic strip B.C. with the dinosaurs looking at the departing ark..."I hope you're satisfied, Miss Priss. There goes our ride!" ??

Cheers!

[Right Wing Professor]

Don't you ever watch The Sopranos ?

I used to, religiously.

So to speak :-)

[RightWingNilla]

Where is that comic strip B.C. with the dinosaurs

Dunno. But I think Johnny Hart is/was a YEC.

[RightWingNilla]

Don't you ever watch The Sopranos ?

8 more days to go...

[js1138]

esscatology Someone spelled it wrong, it should be "Esskaytology", viz:

No $h!+?

[grey_whiskers]

esscatology Someone spelled it wrong, it should be "Esskaytology", viz:

No $h!+?

Well, they're not as good as Hebrew National's franks, but they're not bad. . . ;-)

Cheers!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Those who have been flamed should turn the other cheek rather than respond in kind since both sides are on notice to stop the personal attacks.

Okay.

I'm sorry if my response was intemperate; the Evolutionists' penchant for using (at least in part) the Clintonian "Nuts & Sluts" method of responding to their critics just chafes a personal raw nerve with me. I apologize for my own actions.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, that's asking a bit much. My theory of Contract is that contracts freely entered into are presumptively valid, but where there is a gross disparity in power or in benefit, the beneficiary party bears the burden of demonstrating that the contract is valid.

Who determines what constitutes a "gross disparity", provided that both Contractors are of sound mind and free will?

Respectfully, your argument reminds me of Frederick Nymeyer's critique of John Calvin's error concerning Usury Law -- according to Nymeyer (if I remember correctly; I haven't the Article handy, as Contra Mundum's Nymeyer links are presently broken), Calvin erred when he argued that the Biblical Prohibition on "Usury" pertained only to "extreme" Rates of Interest.

Nymeyer counter-argued that, when read in context of the totality of Biblical references to Lending at Interest, the "Usury" Prohibition did not pertain to Commercial Lending Rates at all; Borrowing at even, say, a nosebleed 30% Annual Interest Rate would not be "egregious" or "usurious" in the least, if one has a reasonable expectation of far greater profits (had one borrowed $21 dollars at 30% annual interest to buy a share of Microsoft in 1986, and never repaid the loan -- one would still have about a hundred-fold excess return as of today, after repayment of all compounded interest and principal).

Rather, Nymeyer argued (correctly, I think... though again, I'll hafta re-read the Article to review his Biblical references whenever the Links are repaired) that the "Usury Prohibition" referred only to Charity -- Biblically, it is immoral to charge Interest on Charity offered to the Poor.

Thus, Nymeyer argued, Commercial Lending for Enterprise Profit is Biblically governed by the Free Market and existing monetary conditions, and not some arbitrary standard of "how much" is "too much".

It seems to me that the same rule applies: "Who determines what constitutes a "gross disparity", provided that both Contractors are of sound mind and free will?"

Until you can answer that, you haven't established a Precedent role for the State. (IMHO).

Best, OP

[bvw]

If you look at the work with the one-track mind of a radical Marxist Darwinist, yes you'll see everthing in terms of class struggle tree-like derivation form a single ancestor. But is you liberate yourself -- tell your internal Mr. Gorbachev to "Tear down that wall!" -- from the excessive observer bias, and allow for alternate obseravtional and classificational models -- you will find that spider's web, that trellis-like structure you claim you'd want to find. I'm pretty sure. At least, it will not be "just so" a perfect tree!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

No. One more time: marriage is not a contract.

Classically, it is.

There's been a few hundred years of State usurpation over the Personal-Contractual Institution of Marriage, but that doesn't make the State usurpation right.

Oh, wait, never mind -- you're not really a Libertarian at all. Pretty much any State usurpation of natural Voluntary-Contractual Society is A-OK by you, so long as it advances your agenda.