|
The Dude
Birkenhead, UK
|
lightbeamrider wrote: <quoted text> Yeah and who are you telling your fundie lies for? Darwin? You would not know the truth if it sat on you. What do you really care about matters of truth? You and others promote a program that is patently absurd and ridicule others who disagree. At the end of the day that is all you got other than pictures and a story. Perpetrate fraud on children, most of whom could care less and keep each other stupid. Your whole system will not stand. In that case you should have no problem debunking it then, should you? Page 885. Go. Now. And once you've dealt with that we'll give you some more. Remember beamer, your mere disagreement with me does not make me a liar. You have to demonstrate that. Funny how it tends to work out the other way around...
|
|
The Dude
Birkenhead, UK
|
Thomas Robertson wrote: <quoted text>
Can you supply a quote?
I have read several books by Evolutionists and none of them discuss theology. To be fair, some do. Take Dawkins and the guy that he mentioned - Will Provine. The difference is though that popular science books are *not* peer-reviewed published science papers. Of course all HTS can do is ignore the fact that no scientific paper supports his claims, and the fact that many theists also accept evolution. The atheist caricature must not fall! Else he will have nothing to argue about.(shrug)
|
|
RU CRS
Bellevue, WA
|
The Dude wrote: <quoted text>
Not only do we agree, we also demonstrated it. But no, cranks aside, evolution does not promote the idea of monkey professors. However you ARE a great ape. Just like every other human being. Are there differences in chromosome instructions for ape reproduction and that of humans, and if so why do you think something so small would make such a hugh difference?
|
|
“Pissing people off since 1949”
Level 8
Since: Apr 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
RU CRS wrote: <quoted text>The Bible teaches that Adam was made from the dust of the earth. That's not 'knowing'. That is believing. RU CRS wrote: We can define dust as many things other than mud. Understood. You can make shit up to suit your needs. Got it.
|
|
“Pissing people off since 1949”
Level 8
Since: Apr 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
Thomas Robertson wrote: <quoted text>
Can you supply a quote?
I have read several books by Evolutionists and none of them discuss theology. I've asked him for exactly that at least twice now. So far, nothing. {shrug}
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
You mean, you don't like it when your individual claims are laid bare and exposed for what they are. <quoted text> Not going to happen. You don't get to dictate how I reply to you. If you ignore my responses, it won't change the fact that I'll continue to respond to your unsubstantiated claims, making each one of them clear, and everyone else will notice that you're unable to respond to them. Yankee Yahoo wrote: No, Drew, I plainly don't respond to broken posts, on any topic whatsoever. Now you are being dishonest, and uncivil. Yes, I DO GET TO DICTATE HOW YOU REPLY TO ME. No, you don't. If you post, I can reply to your post. Nothing you do can change that. I'm afraid that is how Topix works. So who here is being dishonest? What is "uncivil" is when you claim that you'll ignore someone's posting because you don't get to dictate its style. Yankee Yahoo wrote: You method is unnecessary, and often too abused on forums to take points out of context. My method is often *quite* necessary to disentangle multiple claims form long paragraphs, in order to illustrate the fallacy or lack of evidence for each claim. And no, I don't take points out of context. When such claims have been made before, I have asked the other poster to describe how the claim was taken out of context, and they have always gone silent on that. Yankee Yahoo wrote: I choose not to accept such a dialogue. In other words, you choose to ignore the postings of others when you don't get to dictate the style they use. Sorry, but you're not the king here. Yankee Yahoo wrote: This will be your last warning. ::yawn::
|
|
RU CRS
Bellevue, WA
|
MikeF wrote: <quoted text>
That's not 'knowing'. That is believing.
<quoted text>
Understood. You can make shit up to suit your needs. Got it. No, I am telling it as I see it. Why do some Evolutionist try and twist the truth so much?
|
|
“Pissing people off since 1949”
Level 8
Since: Apr 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
RU CRS wrote: <quoted text>No, I am telling it as I see it. Why do some Evolutionist try and twist the truth so much? I can't answer that without a specific example of what you see as 'twisting'
|
|
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
There wasn't any mention of magical spaceships in Genesis. Yankee Yahoo wrote: What is a magical spaceship, Drew? Any device that would have taken a non-technological Adam and Eve, or their offspring, to other planets. *** The Garden of Eden would quickly have filled to capacity, becoming a hell on Earth. The idea that there was no death prior to Adam's sin is just another silly fairy tale. Yankee Yahoo wrote: Why do you think that the Bible is literal? I don't. But I recognize, as do many others, that lots of Bible-believers take it that way. For instance, ever heard of young Earth creationists? Yankee Yahoo wrote: Fairy tales are from the Celts. There are no fairies in Middle Eastern lore, unless you count the Persian peri and devi. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins)". Note that referring to something as a "fairy tale" does not require it to have "fairies", but instead, to include *any* "fantastic forces and beings". Yankee Yahoo wrote: Are you claiming that science will not one day conquer death? I'm making no claim one way or the other about what science will one day do. I'm pointing out that the claim that the Garden of Eden had no death prior to Adam's "sin" would have led to reproduction to the point of suffering. Yankee Yahoo wrote: The universe is very old, and very large And nothing in the Bible made a claim that anything in the Garden of Eden would have left it. Yankee Yahoo wrote: Your closed-minded, intolerant attitude will not be tolerated. Your insults are pointless and demonstrate that you can't argue on the points alone.
|
|
Since: Jun 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
The Dude wrote: <quoted text>
In that case you should have no problem debunking it then, should you?
Page 885.
Go.
Now.
And once you've dealt with that we'll give you some more.
Remember beamer, your mere disagreement with me does not make me a liar. You have to demonstrate that.
Funny how it tends to work out the other way around... I have to demonstrate you are a fundie fraud? Time will tell, Einstein. All the cards are still in the hands and not on the table. Even if i did agree with you then it would not change the fact you spew absurd lies under the guise of Science. Dull lies to boot! Not even interesting!
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
nanoanomaly wrote: Sure. Drew's a remnant of an echo of "non-life". Is this the point where you send me a private message and apologize for your bad behavior, and then complain that there's a conspiracy acting against you?
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
Yankee Yahoo wrote: His butchering of posts has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. You mean, my identifying each of your statements and claims and refuting them one by one?
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
Charles Idemi wrote: In summary, the ultimate science to date are un able to stop death, why? Why should current science be able to stop death?
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
How does the non-existence of "monkey professors" provide evidence for the existence of a god?(There isn't anything in the process of evolution that requires all species to evolve in the exact same way.) Charles Idemi wrote: In sincerity, explain the theory of evolution? In sincerity, I'll be glad to, as soon as you answer my question first.
|
|
The Dude
Birkenhead, UK
|
RU CRS wrote: <quoted text>Are there differences in chromosome instructions for ape reproduction and that of humans, and if so why do you think something so small would make such a hugh difference? Are those differences consistent with nested hierarchies and genetic drift? Why, yes.
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
MikeF wrote: Wow. Your last warning, Drew. LOL Yes, it's a good thing I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read that.
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
Charles Idemi wrote: Evolution theory states that, humans evolved from elements, apes and what have you, do you agree to that, yes or no? No. Common descent states that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common population of great apes.(It doesn't say anything about "elements".)
|
|
The Dude
Birkenhead, UK
|
lightbeamrider wrote: <quoted text> I have to demonstrate you are a fundie fraud? Time will tell, Einstein. All the cards are still in the hands and not on the table. Even if i did agree with you then it would not change the fact you spew absurd lies under the guise of Science. Dull lies to boot! Not even interesting! Why yes, actually you DO have to back up your claims with evidence. Otherwise they can be dismissed as baseless claims that LACK evidence. That is the difference between non-fundies like myself, and fundies, like your good self. We know you don't find science interesting. It's your choice to remain ignorant of science, just as it's my choice to remain ignorant of sports. But I don't go around claiming to be an expert of have any great knowledge of sport, or telling the people who do it professionally for a living that they're doing it wrong.
|
|
RU CRS
Bellevue, WA
|
Drew Smith wrote: There wasn't any mention of magical spaceships in Genesis.
<quoted text>
Any device that would have taken a non-technological Adam and Eve, or their offspring, to other planets.
***
The Garden of Eden would quickly have filled to capacity, becoming a hell on Earth.
The idea that there was no death prior to Adam's sin is just another silly fairy tale.
<quoted text>
I don't. But I recognize, as do many others, that lots of Bible-believers take it that way. For instance, ever heard of young Earth creationists?
<quoted text>
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins)". Note that referring to something as a "fairy tale" does not require it to have "fairies", but instead, to include *any* "fantastic forces and beings".
<quoted text>
I'm making no claim one way or the other about what science will one day do. I'm pointing out that the claim that the Garden of Eden had no death prior to Adam's "sin" would have led to reproduction to the point of suffering.
<quoted text>
And nothing in the Bible made a claim that anything in the Garden of Eden would have left it.
<quoted text>
Your insults are pointless and demonstrate that you can't argue on the points alone. Where do you get that they reproduced before the forbidden tree incident? We only have the Bible, and we really don't know what it was like for our first parents in the beginning. The Bible also tells us that there will be no marriages in the New Heaven and Earth. It is what it is.
|
|
“I am evolving as fast as I can”
Since: Jan 08
Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now
|
Please wait...
HTS wrote: <quoted text>I'm not presenting ID as a scientific theory. I'm debunking evolution. You're attempting to defend a "scientific theory" [evolution] by making philosophical judgements regarding ID. And you are doing so very poorly. When are you going to say something that actually impacts evolutionary theory? So far you've demolished a couple of strawmen of your own devising. Gee, how hard is it to demolish a strawman, especially one you built yourself. So far you are batting a goose egg.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Sagittarius
