Evolution vs. Creation

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>I meant that, English belongs to no other nations but, England.

What is with this Rainman obsession with England and English? This is a discussion about Evolution. How about displaying your ignorance on that subject instead. Your annoying posts are nothing but horse crap.

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
I do believe that we have shown that to be wrong Chuckles.

You have shown nothing. American English never came on their own, but had roots in England...

Elohim wrote:

<quoted text>What is with this Rainman obsession with England and English? This is a discussion about Evolution. How about displaying your ignorance on that subject instead. Your annoying posts are nothing but horse crap.

Oh!
Crappy crap, this forum is in English language, so we need to know its origin.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>You have shown nothing. American English never came on their own, but had roots in England...

Which had its roots in mainland Europe.

Charles Idemi wrote:

Who are the English? ofcourse, people from England...

So why did you say "England" when you meant "people from England"?

What language did they speak while they were on the boats on their way to the land of England?
What language did they speak when they stepped off the boat onto the land of England?
Same language or two different languages?

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>All languages, had that start, but English started and developed in England.

*Still* no answer to my questions:

What language did they speak while they were on the boats on their way to the land of England?
What language did they speak when they stepped off the boat onto the land of England?
Same language or two different languages?

So prior to Middle English, everyone was mute?
<quoted text>
They spoke all of those languages in England prior to Middle English?(Or did you simply fail to understand that we were talking about England?)

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>In your post, you were not specific, but general.

We were discussing Middle English. Did you somehow miss the context?

Do you know what "context" is?

Naturalism cannot avoid it's philosophical implications. It is in fact a religious belief the same as mine.

Jim H wrote:

Naturalism cannot avoid it's philosophical implications. It is in fact a religious belief the same as mine.

Naturalism IS a philosophy, genius.

And it's not a religious belief because it worships no God.(Christ, I can't believe I even had to rebut that -- LOL)

Naturalism is a religion like bald is a hair color and NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

MikeF wrote:

[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
The electric one also unwrapped
"

Nice!

(So did the other end of the manual one)

True, I have two of those also

"Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity". Michael Ruse prof of philosophy and zoology University of Guelph Canada May 2000

HTS wrote:

IAN'S... I've told you before that I'm not going to prove that there's a God.

And I've agreed with that.

HTS wrote:

IAN'S... I've told you before that I'm not going to .. I don't need to because I'm not claiming ID to be a scientific theory.

That's irrelevant. You claim that it is the truth. Are you proposing different standards for your version of it and mine? Do you get a pass because your version of truth is faith based? Not in my book.

Jim H wrote:

Naturalism cannot avoid it's philosophical implications. It is in fact a religious belief the same as mine.

But *methodological* naturalism is not a religion.

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh my, the projection is strong with this one. The evidence for evolution is not "philosophical". It is real and concrete. I have offered more than once to discuss specifics of certain points of evolution. You and your kind always run away when presented with a direct challenge.
I made no jab at your religion. That was a challenge that you ran away from.
So let's see. You are afraid to make any scientific claims against evolution. You are afraid to defend your own religion. You don't seem to be much of a believer to me (now that was a jab, but it was not a stupid one).

I have posed numerous challenges to NDT... and you simply cower away with diversions. I debunked pterosaur evolution, and neither you nor anyone on this forum had a rebuttal. All you did was pull out the "incredulity", card, which is code for "evolutiondidit" and "you infidels should just accept evolution on faith.". Ou are fond of bashing religion, but are incapable of scientific debate.

Jim H wrote:

"Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity". Michael Ruse prof of philosophy and zoology University of Guelph Canada May 2000

Ruse is mistaken, since over 12,000 U.S.*Christian* clergy have no problem with accepting evolution.

Clearly, they don't see it as a "substitute" for their Christianity.

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
Naturalism IS a philosophy, genius.
And it's not a religious belief because it worships no God.(Christ, I can't believe I even had to rebut that -- LOL)
Naturalism is a religion like bald is a hair color and NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Naturalism is atheism... and atheism is religion... If this were not so, why did the president of the American Atheist Association appear on O'ReIlly and demand that atheists have a symbol of their beliefs at the 9-11 memorial? He said that to deny atheists that right was BIGOTRY. Bigotry against what? A RELIGION.

Jim H wrote:

"Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity". Michael Ruse prof of philosophy and zoology University of Guelph Canada May 2000

Yes, just like physics, chemistry, geology and other sciences it could be called a secular philosophy. There is no need to call on god to explain the laws of physics and there is no need to call on a god to explain how life got to its present forms.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
And I've agreed with that.
<quoted text>
That's irrelevant. You claim that it is the truth. Are you proposing different standards for your version of it and mine? Do you get a pass because your version of truth is faith based? Not in my book.

Do you want to confine this debate to science? If so, then, according to your standards, NDT is all there is to talk about.

http://www.topix.net/forum/state/la/T9QUH2OMJ...

HTS wrote:

Why don't you bother to explain the relevancy of your "cut and paste" posts?

What cut-and-paste post? Did you mean the list of failed predictions? That wasn't a cut-and-paste post. Every word except the quotations was original. So was the selection of posts chosen.

And how could you possibly miss their relevance? Maybe if I posted it like this:

[0] "Attempting to validate abiogenesis is a naive and hopeless dream" - HTS, Topix poster.

[1]“Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.”- Dr Dionysius Lardner, professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London

[2]“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”- Marechal Ferdinand Foch

[3]“The phonograph has no commercial value at all.”- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s

Do you see the relevance yet?

Yes naturalism IS a very ancient religious concept which predates Christianity. The Philistine god Dagon supposedly created man from fish. Thales of Miletus thought that water its self brought forth life, this is also true of the Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians.