Posted on 10/19/2009 8:32:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Newsweek magazine recently published a commentary by atheist Richard Dawkins containing some of his arguments against “creationists.” Therein he admitted, “What would be evidence against evolution, and very strong evidence at that, would be the discovery of even a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum.”[1]
Out of place fossils are actually common, despite Dawkins’ claims regarding the “massive numbers” of fossils documenting evolutionary history. ICR News has reported on several over the last 12 months [2,3,4,5,6] and another one has surfaced recently...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Funny, I have always believed that if God had wanted us to to be dumb, unquestioning, unreasoning beasts He would have made us that way. Apparently some believe and act otherwise.
“Please forgive the intrusion, but as the post references an earlier post of mine I thought I’d jump in. Refer to post #252 in this thread for an explanation of why I do it.”
Apologies for not pinging you. I understand why you do it, and agree with you completely. However, I choose to go the next step - and try to get “creation science” guys to admit that they believe that folks who accept the concept of evolution are going to hell.
It’s more dramatic, and even they (creation science types) start to get the fact that they look ridiculous by saying everyone that disagrees with them will burn in the eternal fires.
Of course, occasionally (I think it’s happened twice) you’ll find an honest “creation science” adherent who will readily admit that according to that theology if you believe in evolution you are going to hell - I always thank them for being honest about their beliefs.
Still, “Creation Science” is a big lie, and any approach that exposes it, and its most vocal adherents on this board works for me. Keep up the good work. No amount of ignorance and no amount of “Lying for Jesus” will turn their brand of alchemy into truth.
You dismiss as “spamming” the posted articles but no one forces you to click on any of them anymore than the nearly endless repeats of other things (O.B. and birth certificate saga comes to mind!).
You show up on the thread and want to discuss the article I'll be happy to discuss with you, get personal with insults and I have no time for it.
You are exactly right, and neither do you, so quit making those observations about others.
No, I won’t. My observations always follow the denial of someone else’s Christianity by the offenders whom I will continue to call out.
You’ll just have to accept that.
As I have stated many times scientific proof is from peer reviewed scientific articles.
Not :
Bible verses and creation magazine web sites.
An example:
Your side states that radioactive dating is wrong. Show a legitimate scientific article with references to back your point. Not something from ICR and the like.
I don’t know if it is you or someone else (you all get mixed together in my head), but I have stated ny scientific background and what I have worked on and and been told I am making it up and that I don’t know science.
But without getting into the specifics of Biblical verse or radiological dating methods,
Peer review
I think there were some peer review papers stating that collagen had been preserved in certain dinosaur bones.
But despite peer review the conclusions were attacked as contamination and error (if not incompetence) in other peer reviewed papers. Evidently a lot of nonsense is peer reviewed and passed. But is it proof?
Let's not forget that scientists are humans with prejudices, narrow mindedness, self serving opinions and just plain craziness like the people they are peers to and the rest of the populace.
So when he, or increasingly, she, makes judgment calls about what is “evidence” and what is anomaly, what to record as significant and what not to as “noise” and fluke or how to reshape scraps of bone to make them fit together
because of subjective interpretation, they are laboring under the same failings as everyone else, including the creationists, ID’ers, etc.
Add to that the endless speculation that is part and parcel of science and it's little wonder that a fairy tale is as likely to start with, “ A study found...” as with “Once Upon a Time..”
It had characteristics of both species but wasn't transitional.
Funny.
Looks like 2 more missing transitional fossils.
All I have to accept is Jesus Christ as Savior and lord. You are free to do the same.
What part of Catholic teaching advocates arrogance, abusiveness, and bullying?
DG
I never said that it did. Why do you ask?
>>”Why do you ask?”
Are you saying that you are unaware of your own posting style?
DG
I’m quite aware and proud of my posting style, thank you. However, you asked:
“What part of Catholic teaching advocates arrogance, abusiveness, and bullying?”
I take it that you are referring to a post or a position of mine. If so, I have never asserted any such thing. Now, back to my question: why do you ask? Surely you understand the reason for my query.
I assumed that you were aware that your posting style is seen, at least by me, (and I am pretty sure by others) as “ arrogant, abusive, and bullying.”I wondered if such was in line with, or against the teaching of your “very strong faith.”
DG
I am sorry that you are offended. Are you equally offended by the posts that trigger the firestorms of my acerbic wit?
>>”Are you equally offended by the posts that trigger the firestorms of my acerbic wit?”
I might, or might not be. Is there something in Catholic (or Christian) teaching which says “if somebody else does it first, arrogance, abuse, and bullying is perfectly alright?”
DG
I’m afraid we don’t share the same definition of “bullying”, and pursuing that conjecture to its conclusion would require you to provide an example.
These are only the most recent examples. I didn't take the time to categorize them as to 1. arrogance 2. abusive and 3. bullying. Most were all three together, anyway.
proud of my posting style
I guess nonsense like this generates traffic for your blog.
I proudly associate with the former. The True Faith.
It is patently obvious that the crew here has a problem with weak faith. Posting this rationalization nonsense creates a kind of group therapy session to reinforce their faith.
Coprophilia seems to be an issue for several of our resident YECs.
And you repeat yourself incessantly, even when your response is wholly inadequate.
Hey—that’s another sign of a liberal!
Hmmmm...a cowardly, fraudulent, crybaby...He must be a liberal! Aren’t those the qualities of the entire WH staff?
However, only recently have creation rationalizing pied-piper frauds begun to willfully misinterpret them to secure their own standing as a false prophets among those of weak faith.
Why do you post silly pictures in response to a serious post? Have you nothing of consequence to say?
You know that, you charlatan, yet you continue to call yourself a Christian.
Pride in ignorance—that’s a fine trait!
Incredible, just incredible.
When you have your next original thought, ping me. I have a 15 minute time slot next March, so start thinking.
Clearly, you are a summa cum laude graduate of the GGG School of Mindless Posts.
Your dishonesty and fraud in posting as well as with regard to your professed Christianity is on plain display for all readers to peruse.
If you can’t do that, I’ll just assume that your comment was merely a drive-by spitball shot devoid of any real historical perspective.
That’s an awfully leftist/Axelrod/Emanuel/Obama thing to do.
I would expect you to be in complete support of his sleight-of-hand sophistry.
Check out the shameless, lying fraud that is GGG here. He pretends to be a biblical Christian, yet he knowingly posts deceptive, obfuscative, and just plain false information.
No, I won’t. My observations always follow the denial of someone else’s Christianity by the offenders whom I will continue to call out.
You’ll just have to accept that.
I am a Christian. You don’t make the call, pal.
What? Do you have any real understanding of science at all?
Ah, but the lying fraud is YOU:
Can’t you just picture GGG in a plaid jacket and striped pants selling tickets to the bearded lady side show on the boardwalk?
Your evasion upon exposure will be the subject of laughter.
You’re exposed, you know it, and you’re running for the hills. No childish graphics can overcome the shame of your actions. You are over.
I think it just means that he’s a lying fraud who knows that, despite the truth, his sleight of hand will continue to amaze and “educate” his minions (few though they be) of faith as weak as his own. In that regard, they’re like democrat voting blocs.
Furthermore, your continue to betray your complete lack of knowledge about any matter in science.
You call me an imposter, yet you are a demonstrable FRAUD. You are no Christian, and I challenge your professed acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Your statements in that regard are phony and self-serving. You are a side show huckster.
GGG, you are a shameless, lying fraud. To continue to post this New Scientist cover in support of your untenable position when in fact it conveys the OPPOSITE message is the height of sophistry and deceit. Your temerity is matched only by your craving for attention which you receive abundantly as mindless adulation from the rest of the cultists on your ping list. It is both instructive and sad that your minions at FR take you seriously at all. Personally, I'm glad that the great majority of the world's Christians dismiss your position and more importantly your approach as unworthy of the faith.
Yes, I enjoy exposing him and the rest of the cult.
Brilliant! Just confirms that the YECs among us are really leftists at heart and in method.
Just as I expose frauds who act in the name of Jesus, as you do.
Very clever—I never would have guessed that you would post the same crap twice!
Your incessant posting of garbage from AiG and other rationalization sites proves that you’re a phony.
Christianity is not a spectator sport, as you and the rest of the Hare Christian cult here seem to want to pervert it. I don’t wear my faith on my sleeve, nor do I respond to demands to take litmus tests from fraudulent messengers such as you.
I am a Christian, and you are a charlatan.
Having my Christianity challenged by a pied piper fraud such as you only serves to confirm my faith and further impugn your own.
But keep posting! The entertainment that I derive from this pablum is nearly priceless.
"Yep, personal attack, common with Christians here."
Not Christians in general, just the cult here at FR of which your current bete noire is a charter member.
I am disappointed by your ongoing evasion, bobbing, and weaving, as I had high hopes for this discussion. Your inability to acknowledge the Christianity of Catholics is a disturbing exposition of an inner bigotry that I had suspected but denied.
Equals? Hardly. You have a long way to go.
Culthood is not the glamorous life that you may think it is. I strongly suggest that you abandon any plans that you may have to join the Hare Christians.
Are you posting from a TelePrompTer? Your long posts contain the verbiage of a BHO speech, similarly devoid of real content.
That is your unsubstantiated assertion. If you have to cast aspersions against your debate partner to balance a position otherwise bereft of logic, then the only remaining value to this exchange is entertainment.
I am entertained. More, please.
Really, the death throes of an argument are an ugly thing, and best not shared with the public.
Why can’t the cultists separate religion and politics? Are you frustrated politicians who use faith as a crutch? Or are you frustrated by your inability to evangelize thinking people into your cult and blame politics for the failures of your faith?
Really? I beg to differ. I have told you that I reject your concept of closed-minded, bigoted Christianity. The fact that I fail your litmus test for entry into that cult further bolsters my credibility instead.
Please entertain us further with your gross rationalizations that even a child can expose!
A bit of introspection may be in order on your part.
I told you I’m a Christian. Just not the intolerant type.
I trust in God. I’m a Christian.
Just not the intolerant type.
How sad it must be to have such a weak faith, and yet be so fearful of hell that you have to fabricate a version of Christianity that ensures your deliverance merely by definition.
It must be nice to have the Christian “Clapper”—
Clap once—you’re a Christian!
Clap twice—not any more!
I thank God that your cultish microcosm of pseudo-Christians is but a small, albeit annoying, clique. Christianity is not an attribute that’s turned on when you’re good and off when you’re bad.
But you amuse me, so keep it up.
I say that as a real Christian.
Some are less adept at hiding it than others. This particular poster is notoriously unable to keep from blowing his own argument each time he posts.
Surrender comes easy when you’ve got nothing, doesn’t it, tp?
Among Christians I do. You don’t get to make the call, King Ludd.
You actually showed a few traces of brain activity in some of your earlier posts, but with this embarrassing rant you identify yourself squarely as a member of the cult. In fact, given your FR name, I’d call you the King of the Cult of Hare Christians.
As is characteristic of members of your cult, you are a closed-minded bigot. Only your version and definition of Christianity are correct—to you, those Catholics, Methodists, etc., don’t even qualify as Christians. Practicing your own faith is not enough for you—you are on a mission to sniff out and assess the Christianity of those around you, like circling dogs sniffing the butts of their partners.
You remind readers just how closed-minded, empty-headed, and bigoted the cult can be. By isolating yourself in this way, you make it clear that simple-mindedness is not a condition of Christianity in general, but is a unique characteristic of your brand of the thought-verboten bastardization of the faith that you so vilely practice.
When someone uses abuse, to establish dominance over ones opponent, in place of rational argumentation, that is bullying. I didn't see any kind of reasoned argument in all your posts this far back. No, wait; there was a post in which, you assumed a "vegetarian world" in which Tyrannosaurus would have no use for ripping and tearing teeth. Sorry, I misspoke.
DG
Apparently I am correct in that we don’t share the same definition of bullying. It’s physics, really—for every action (post) there’s an equal and opposite reaction (response). I would suggest augmenting your research to include the posts that generated the responses of mine that offended you.
I’ve enjoyed reading your list—it’s been like playing a Buck W. greatest hits CD!
I’m sorry—was that bullying? Or arrogant?
It seems that your issue is more with my style than with my content. If true, then FR may not be the right place for you. I am rather tame in comparison to many others. But I am right much more often than many others.
And I remain proud of my posts and my positions.
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.