Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,283 Year: 5,540/9,624 Month: 565/323 Week: 62/143 Day: 5/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 120 (30578)
01-29-2003 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jet
01-29-2003 1:08 AM


Jet: "Be not dismayed at the obvious unfair treatment that I often receive at this website, (albeit, I do appreciate the notice that you posted, and any support that is directed towards myself, regardless of whether or not my views themselves are supported)."
-------------------------------
No problem. I am this thing together with you.
Unfair treatment, or favoritism is something that REALLY irks me. If Admin. feels they can't catch all violations, then hopefully they appreciate a little help from the sidelines.
We must keep these discussions civil and respectful.
Anyway Jet, keep up the good fight!
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 1:08 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 10:34 PM DanskerMan has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1825 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 49 of 120 (30612)
01-29-2003 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jet
01-29-2003 12:15 AM


quote:
2. Actually, I am quite demanding when it comes to creationism. In fact, I must hold the idea of "Creation by Intelligent Design" to an even higher standard than the TOE because with the acceptance of creationism, one must also accept personal responsibility for ones' actions, acknowledging both accountability and a day or reckoning. Acceptance of the TOE demands neither. The only demand of the TOE is survival of the fittest, be it through mutation or subjugation.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Personally, it's the theory of Plate Tectonics that keeps me on the straight and narrow.
quote:
3. Please reference my initial post in "Evolution is not Science" for a better understanding on the failures of the TOE to withstand the test of being a viable scientific endeavor. Then feel free to comment further on this matter.
Been there, done that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 12:15 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 10:42 PM edge has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 120 (30616)
01-29-2003 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by DanskerMan
01-29-2003 2:14 PM


Thanks for the support.
Shalom
Jet
(p.s. Love the signature!)
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by DanskerMan, posted 01-29-2003 2:14 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 120 (30618)
01-29-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by edge
01-29-2003 10:20 PM


Edge: Yeah, I know what you mean. Personally, it's the theory of Plate Tectonics that keeps me on the straight and narrow.
*** LOL .......gotta love crustal plate subduction! The ultimate recycling machine!***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 10:20 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 01-29-2003 11:16 PM Jet has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 120 (30621)
01-29-2003 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Jet
01-29-2003 10:42 PM


"*** LOL .......gotta love crustal plate subduction! The ultimate recycling machine!***"
No, I'd go for creationism. It recycles the same arguments over and over again. Never mind that they have been proven faulty or inaccurate, they continue to reappear from the faithful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 10:42 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 11:22 PM wj has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 120 (30623)
01-29-2003 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by wj
01-29-2003 11:16 PM


That was original! Here is some friendly advice concerning your attempt at comedic interfacing, not to mention sardonic interlocution. Don't quit your day job!
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein
[This message has been edited by Jet, 01-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 01-29-2003 11:16 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 11:26 PM Jet has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1825 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 54 of 120 (30625)
01-29-2003 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jet
01-29-2003 11:22 PM


quote:
That was original! Here is some friendly advice concerning your attempt at comedic interfacing, not to mention sardonic interlocution. Don't quit your day job!
Shalom
Jet
Well, if you didn't get it, you could just say so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 11:22 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 11:59 PM edge has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 120 (30629)
01-29-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by edge
01-29-2003 11:26 PM


That wasn't much better, but you get a half thumbs up for effort.
Shalom
Sardonically,
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 11:26 PM edge has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 120 (30690)
01-30-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jet
01-28-2003 11:49 PM


I can't actually believe what I am about to write, but I agree with Jet that I thought that his suspension was too much.
Although it was funny that he prefaced a (mild) insult by saying that he was aware that he wasn't allowed to insult people. Maybe that was why it happened.
Anyway, please explain why my wind analogy doesn't work.
Is it reasonable to fault the study of aerodynamics for not explaining where wind comes from when it doesn't claim to?
If not, why should the ToE be faulted for not explaining where the first life came from if it doesn't claim to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jet, posted 01-28-2003 11:49 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Jet, posted 02-03-2003 3:18 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 120 (30698)
01-30-2003 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jet
01-27-2003 3:55 PM


quote:
Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.
You are confusing what people on one or another side of a debate do with what a scientific theory actually claims.
Please provide a textbook or professional explanation of the Theory of Evolution that includes any ridicule of it's critics.
Do you reject the theories of physics because some people have ridiculed the folks who claim they have invented free energy machines?
Do you reject astrophysics because some astrophysicists have ridiculed people who are critical of the idea that the Earth isn't flat?
quote:
Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
Please provide these better-supported hypothese that you claim have been ruled out, and please include the references to the scientific papers which support them.
quote:
Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.
Please provide specific evidence from the scientific literature which demonstrates your claim that the evidence found in nature consistently contradicts the ToE.
quote:
On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific.***(please see original posting in the aforementioned forum to access reference site.)
But you have not provided any evidence whatsoever to support these claims, Jet. They are only your assertions.
quote:
As to your "wind" comment, I have been instructed by the administrator not to insult other members, which would be the only appropriate response to that sophomoric query.
Really? It's sophmoric? How so? Please explain, in detail, your analysis of my analogy and why it is not valid.
quote:
As to your reliance on "evidence", I must question your sincerity. There is far more evidence of Intelligent Design throughout the universe than there is for what I can only consider a most childish theory, that being the TOE.
Please provide specific citations from the professional literature which evidence Intelligent Design.
First, though, perhaps you could provide a basic definition of how we can identify something that has been Intelligently Designed.
IOW, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently-Designed system and a natural one which we don't understand yet or might not have the ability to understand?
Please be specific, and give examples.
quote:
I do not mean to be insulting here,
HA! Since when?
quote:
it is just that the TOE is so bankrupt when it comes to honest scientific analysis that it is my personal conclusion that only childlike faith, such as believing in santa claus or the easter bunny, can enable someone to accept the TOE at face value.
I believe that you believe this.
However, so far you have yet to give any specific evidence, or really any evidence at all, of why you believe this. You have made only unsupported assertions.
quote:
As an ex-christian, (albeit a catholic, which is a matter best discussed in another forum), you must surely understand the neccessity of faith when it comes to accepting that which cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt using nothing beyond the methods of true scientific inquiry.
Irrelevant to the questions I asked.
quote:
Belief in Intelligent Design, given the overwhelming evidence throughout the universe, is a much more logical conclusion to arrive at than a belief in the TOE.
Please provide evidence for Intelligent Design.
Specifically, as stated above, I would very much like to know how to tell the difference between a natural system which we don't understand yet, or may not have the ability to understand, and one which is Intelligently Designed.
quote:
I realize that you differ with me on this matter and I doubt that I would be able to convince you of any error on your part because of your animosity towards christianity, based upon false revelations you received while you were a catholic.
Um, my being a former Catholic has nothing at all to do with your ability to convince me that the ToE is an empty theory.
You providing a shred of actual evidence from nature to support your ID philosophy would be a good start, though.
Also, you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the ToE violates any tenet of science in the least.
Providing no evidence, only bald assertions, and then deciding that I won't believe you anyway because I am a former Catholic is a pretty weak argument.
quote:
Nevertheless, I must continue to try to persuade you that the TOE is totally incorrect and that there truly is a Creator of the Universe and all that it holds within its' expanse, and beyond.
Feel free to continue to try to persuade me.
You can start by providing evidence to back up your many claims.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jet, posted 01-27-2003 3:55 PM Jet has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 120 (30701)
01-30-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
01-24-2003 8:48 AM


Jet, you really didn't answer my questions, so I am going to restate them for your convenience:
Jet wrote: personally, I openly reject the TOE because it refuses to abide by the true tenets of science,
Allison wrote: please list the "true tenets of science", and please explain how the ToE violates them.
I cover this in another response.
Jet wrote:is incapable of explaining the existance of life,
Allison wrote: please point out where in the ToE it proposes to explain the existence of life. (I assume you mean the emergence of the first life).
Jet, you still have not pointed out where in the ToE it proposes to explain the existence of life.
Since you and I both know by now that the ToE does not attempt to explain how the first life got here, perhaps you would like to withdraw this as a valid reason for your rejection of the ToE.
Jet wrote: and requires far too much blind faith to believe in its' unsubstantiated claims.
Allison wrote: My acceptance of the ToE is based upon evidence. If reliable evidence came along which contradicted the ToE, I would need to change my understanding of how the world works.
Last time I checked, this is not "blind faith."
You did not respond to this point. I believe I have shown that acceptance of the ToE is not one of "blind faith", but one of evidence. Would you now like to retract this as a reason for your not accepting the ToE?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 01-24-2003 8:48 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 120 (30706)
01-30-2003 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jet
01-29-2003 12:15 AM


quote:
1. John Paul? If your reference concerns the current pope then all I can say is contact Schraf. She is the ex-catholic here and better qualified to comment on infallibility. If John Paul is merely the name of a member of the EVC then no, I don't know John Paul.
LOL!
That was funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 12:15 AM Jet has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 120 (30708)
01-30-2003 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jet
01-29-2003 1:08 AM


quote:
Their hostility towards me is to be expected, considering that I am a strong advocate of creationism as well as an extremely vocal opponent of the TOE. I harbor no ill will towards any of them. I simply accept that they are misled and illinformed. Much of the behaviour exhibited by the administrators concerning my suspensions is based more upon their objection to my belief than to anything else. Vulgarity and insult is not a prerequisite when it comes to silencing me for a time, as you have obviously noticed.
Wow. What a selective memory you have of your own insulting, arrogant behavior. You are not suspended because people disagree with your beliefs. You are suspended because...well, let's let your own words illustrate:
quote:
Jet Retrospective
* Your opinion is totally worthless to me.
* Did I read that correctly? OK, I'll just bite my lip, refrain from laughing, and move on to your next point.
* Please reference the Biblical teachings that will show that I, as a Christian, am supposed to value the opinions of persons who openly reject God, and His Holy Word. Also reference the Biblical teachings that will show that I, as a Christian, should never verbally chastise pagans for their dogma and beliefs.
* Are you seriously attempting to deny the existance of early evolutionary thought with its ties to pagan religious rites and rituals? Is so, I suggest you go back to college and take a few classes in ancient history and ancient religions. Seriously!
* You offer nothing other than the most common and typical pre-teen drivel.
* When I have the desire to discuss and debate with school children, I will visit the nearest elementary school. Until that time, I expect a certain degree of logic and reason to be employed by those I engage. I do not believe that is asking too much.
* That was post #108, not #8. Please pay attention if you expect to continue to be responded to.
* If your comprehension skills are somewhat lacking, don't blame me, blame your teachers. I have no intention of spelling things out as if I were speaking to a group of extremely immature elementary school children.
* That causes me to question if you truly are able to recognize who is petty, ignorant, and arrogant.
* Evo's of above average intelligence are usually able to understand the concept of right and wrong, of good and evil. You obviously do not qualify to be included in that group.
* Typical response from a darkened mind.
* I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. As a youth, one of the many principles greatly impressed upon me was the necessity of developing a great power of reason. I can thank my father, and my grandfather, for that. Perhaps, at times, I require and expect too much from some individuals. The power of reason is not an automatic consequence of physical maturity. Some, like myself, have worked at truly developing it, and others have not. Mores the pity!
* Aside from your mind-numbing ramblings, you post pretty good. You post nonsense, but you do it very well!
* It seems that some individuals have never read the Isaiah Scrolls. It would probably be wise for them to do so before making foolish and inaccurate statements concerning Hebrew teachings, and thereby making fools of themselves in the process.
* Really, the limited knowledge of history that some evolutionists are privy to is most difficult to fathom.
* If you can't accept the fact that the TOE is pagan in its' origin, that is fine by me.
* As to your first point, I said "Logical" conclusion. Your conclusion obviously does not qualify as being in the arena of logic.
* You failed ancient history, didn't you! Otherwise you couldn't possibly have your facts so screwed up. History man, history! Take a refresher course. You desperately need it!
* I am never opposed to examining all sides of an issue, even when I am convinced that one side, (in this case, the argument for evolution), is so full of errors, misinformation, and outright lies that it is, without a doubt, completely inane.
* This site was a waste of my valuable time. The author of this site is a walking oxymoron.
* Your inability to grasp the enormity involved in the discussion of contrary perceptions of data and evidence from an highly intellectual point of view, coupled with your tremendous inability to engage in any sort of meaningful interlocution based upon the intellectual understanding of those scientists who are directly involved, not to mention your gross misunderstanding of the proper etiquette necessary for a productive intercourse and exchange of ideas, joined with your arbitrary dismissal of concepts that you obviously do not comprehend on the same level as the scientists who are engaged in the various fields of science, does make for a rather ordurous experience for anyone of an opposing view who may wish to engage you in discussion. Possessing a proclivity for verbosity is not necessarily a negative characteristic. I would, however, consider you the exception to the rule. Sorry!
* If anyone needs to get serious here, it is you. Your polemic sermons of a wonderful fossil record that simply does not exist other than in your own mind, and your inordinate desire for someone to rebutt your nonsensical posts is cause for questionable concern. Either post something with some real substance or accept that you are hereby considered as irrelevant and incoherent as your previous posts have been.
* Deserving of a reply? I don't recall ever making such a claim. I honestly could not care less if anyone chooses to reply to any of my posts. You choose to do so on your own and at the risk being labeled by me as just another nefandous proponent of that most unscientific of theories, which you refer to as Darwinian evolution!
* It is very obvious from your post that you are a prime example of an illinformed Evo, who attempts to make a point by spouting endless drivel, offering no specific facts concerning the relative nature of the TOE while totally ignoring the countless unscientific assumptions and assertions that must be accepted in order to believe in the TOE. Talk about someone adept at parroting the mindless dogma of a bankrupt theory. You seem to have developed it into an art form. Kudos!
Let us also not forget, Jet, your accusation that I had spammed your Creationist research "institute" with snail mail and this was why you couldn't send me any literature on the kind of research this "institute" was doing.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jet, posted 01-29-2003 1:08 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Jet, posted 02-03-2003 2:49 AM nator has replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 120 (30714)
01-30-2003 10:52 AM


Jet quoth:
quote:
with the acceptance of creationism, one must also accept personal responsibility for ones' actions, acknowledging both accountability and a day or reckoning.
Bzzzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing. Actually, that comes with acceptance of a God who holds one responsible for one's actions, not acceptance or rejection of any particular origins model.
It's just another rather ill-conceived version of the old "evolution = atheism" slander, isn't it?
You can do better than this, Jet.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Satcomm, posted 01-30-2003 3:19 PM Karl has not replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 120 (30747)
01-30-2003 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Karl
01-30-2003 10:52 AM


quote:
Actually, that comes with acceptance of a God who holds one responsible for one's actions, not acceptance or rejection of any particular origins model.
Ding! Ding! That is correct.
That is the basis for personal responsibility, which is very important, especially for one who has a family.
quote:
It's just another rather ill-conceived version of the old "evolution = atheism" slander, isn't it?
Although I don't agree with much of the theory of evolution, I do agree that the concept of "evolution = atheism" is slander.
Granted, evolution does promote a more naturalist point of view, but science seems to deal exclusively with the natural universe.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Karl, posted 01-30-2003 10:52 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 01-31-2003 9:53 AM Satcomm has replied
 Message 64 by Quetzal, posted 01-31-2003 10:27 AM Satcomm has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024