|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Light Inactive Member |
You're really asking for it, Sidelined. I don't dare to watch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Light
Not to worry. WT has a great sense of humour. Why one day I am sure WT will invite me to go down to see old Gene and we can "Stomp a Piss ant for Christ". I can hardly wait. "I am not young enough to know everything. " Oscar Wilde
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
wj said:
I have to say that WT is just about the only creationist I've encountered who is willing to admit defeat, and admit it graciously. Massive kudos to him for that: see this post for an example. It's hardly surprising that he (I take it Willow is a he? He/she has never corrected us, but for some reason -- the politeness under fire, perhaps -- I thought 'he' was a 'she' for quite a while) should retreat from science to 'safer' (ie, irrefutable) turf.Is this willowtree's way of saying that he has exhausted his supply of "scientific evidence" against evolution and must again drag us back to his religious and philosophical objections to the theory of evolution? Oolon Colluphid's How to be a creationist Rule #4: "If in doubt, turn the discussion onto theology." Science, unsurprisingly, wins in matters of the real world, ie science. But science can have little to say on theology, so when the debate moves there, the two sides can merrily talk past each other for ever. "Evidence? It's about belief!" Cheers, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This is totally off topic, please excuse.
Dear DT/Oolon, Does the Internet Infidels forum still exist? I haven't been able to access it recently. Cheers, WK [This message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-13-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
WK - I haven't been able to get on II lately, either. Maybe we should ask the IPU to miraculously intervene and restore it???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
It's been down the last couple of days, and I'm starting to get shivers and hot-cold flushes. If it stays like it, I'll email Doubting Didymus or the others and see if the problem's major.
I'm expecting IPU intervention shortly though. She's rather more reliable than theists' gods. Cheers, DT / Oolon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Round and round we go were it will stop only God knows.
Your hatred of Dr. Scott is now well known, so are your dogmatic opinions. The "God sense" creationist position has ONE and only one requirement : That God be given credit as the One who created it all. If God is arbitrarily denied this credit, Romans says that He will incapacitate your ability to recognize His fingerprints in creation.This all I have ever said/argued. Dr.Scott plainly teaches that there is eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. He believes the Earth is of an immense age. Guess what ? This puts all the nonsense of young Earth creationists out of business. This also gives evolutionists the eons and eons of time that there theory requires. Light, you can criticize Dr. Scott all you want, but please criticze him for something contained in his teaching that you disagree with. Why is it you fail to see my only argument ? Which is the warning of Romans about God wanting credit and the punishment He metes out if you/I/anyone does not give it to Him. Light, I challenge you to produce one anti-evolution statement made by Dr. Scott that contests any valid evidence for evolution. His teaching on Romans explains the reason why so many brilliant people cannot see a Creator. You have demonized him for your own personal theological differences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I want to slightly correct your belief that I have admitted defeat.
What I said was that UNTIL I or someone else refutes what you said then you are the winner. I haven't had the time to adequately refute your ID atttack. It was a thorough thrashing I will admit but it doesn't scare me in the least. " purposeless and mindless process " this description of RM&NS sounds like a clandestine way of saying that a single Almighty Creator does not exist. I thought science doesn't include religious determinations into their conclusions ? Maybe I am being distrustful ? Maybe I am not naieve ? Have you deliberately ignored the parts of post 116 that mentions you ? Just wondering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
" purposeless and mindless process " this description of RM&NS sounds like a clandestine way of saying that a single Almighty Creator does not exist. I thought science doesn't include religious determinations into their conclusions ? Maybe I am being distrustful ? Maybe I am not naieve ?
That is one way to take it. A very simple way. However, perhaps God is a creature who takes more entertaining than that. Maybe he doesn't want a universe that trundles along in extremely predictable tracks like a little toy railroad. Instead, he establishs something much more complex with rules that allow the emergance of surprising, even to him, properties. Like a ultra play of Conway's life. This God can set a universe up that will in the end result in organisms capable of recognizing him and joining him. But not necessarily any very specific form of such organisms. That would be, basically, boring. And of all possibilities the only thing I can see a god fearing is boredom. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Good stuff NosyNed.
God being bored ? C.S.Lewis said : God to be God - has no needs. But, I will credit this theory of yours (God fearing boredom) to indeed have a theological basis. Quickly said; God cannot stand the perfection of heaven, this is why He values the faith of the imperfect. Persons who relate to Him by faith annihialte the possibility of being bored because He doesn't know the outcome. This is why the Bible clearly teaches that works do not save - only faith. Go to my topic "Message of the Bible" , here I expand this very subject. I am off topic - apologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gilgamesh Inactive Member |
.
[This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 01-13-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Hi Willow
C.S.Lewis said : God to be God - has no needs. I’m intrigued as to why god might bother to do anything, let alone go to all the trouble of intricately creating so many ‘kinds’ of creature. Surely for anything to go to so much trouble, there must be some minimum sort of need: entertainment, perhaps, or just... you know... something to occupy His mind? Otherwise... why bother? If there’s no desire for an outcome (and the Bible seems pretty clear that God does ‘want’ stuff to happen), there’s no reason to do what’ll produce that outcome. Sorry, off topic I know, but every time I hear the ‘god has no needs’ line, it makes me wonder what it’s all for then.
But, I will credit this theory of yours [Ned’s] (God fearing boredom) to indeed have a theological basis. Not to steal Ned’s thunder on this idea, but I suggested pretty much exactly the same thing back here:
quote: And I got that idea from Timothy Ferris’s The Whole Shebang. Cheers, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
I want to slightly correct your belief that I have admitted defeat. What I said was that UNTIL I or someone else refutes what you said then you are the winner. So, the Allies ‘won’ the Second World War... but the Fourth Reich may still rise, eh? It sure is a curious dictionary you use, Willow. It seems that, say, a football team can win a match, but the other team may not have been defeated. Perhaps you could define the term ‘winner’, as you see it please?
I haven't had the time to adequately refute your ID atttack. I quite understand the time constraints. However, my post was on 22 December, and you’ve made countless other posts yourself since then. Maybe you just can’t be bothered to try? If however you cannot refute my argument, then why won’t you accept the (provisional, as with all science) conclusion that you are likely wrong? Since you are not, now, admitting defeat -- despite me winning -- your kudos has just evaporated.
It was a thorough thrashing I will admit but it doesn't scare me in the least. Scare? That is not my intent. If I am wrong, show me. I hope I would admit it, and change my views if necessary. But despite being apparently wrong, you will not change. I find that outstandingly arrogant. In your own mind, you are right, regardless of what you are shown, regardless of your inability to refute contrary argument put to you. There is utterly no point in debating with you then.
"purposeless and mindless process " this description of RM&NS sounds like a clandestine way of saying that a single Almighty Creator does not exist. Nope. Mutation and selection act as if they are mindless, so we may as well regard them as that. It just means that he is not required to explain what we see. He is refuted by the stupidity of the designs.
I thought science doesn't include religious determinations into their conclusions ? It doesn’t. Gods are simply not considered, any more than gremlins are. They might be involved, but since the world acts as if they’re not, we don’t need to include them in our explanations. Yes, it’s a theological conclusion that, because gods don’t seem to be involved, they are actually not even there. But it is a conclusion that individuals draw for themselves -- and plenty of people, many scientists among them, are happy to allow for a generally non-interventionist god.
Maybe I am being distrustful ? Maybe I am not naieve ? Maybe you are only distrustful of argument and evidence which contradicts your own, unsupported, world view? I do not understand why, if you prefer the cosiness of impervious, concrete-bunker faith to evidence-based reality... if no argument can sway you... I don’t understand why you bother to come here to debate. Please explain.
Have you deliberately ignored the parts of post 116 that mentions you ? Just wondering. Huh? You mean that very long, poorly formatted post which replied to someone else (wj), consisting of heaps about theology, philosophy, Milton, Johnson, quotes from Williams? Oh I see, I am in there after all. I was going to say sorry, simply missed it, and I’d get to it shortly. But, maybe I will at some point, but actually, I can’t be bothered. Would you like me to rustle up a list of all the questions you still have not answered? Till you reply to more of those, and until you demonstrate that there is any point in discussing these matters with you anyway, I quite frankly cannot be arsed. TTFN, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
You know I give a guy the credit he deserves and it just doesn't pay.
I meant what I said about your atttack on ID, until it is commensurately refuted you have won the debate. You didn't win on argument - just by default - temporarily. Yet, I also gave you your much deserved props, recognizing the appeal in your arguments . Now you write this conceited childish reply to me which makes you lose credibility as a gentleman. Your comments about me turning a blind eye to evidence is confusing .On one hand I am this sole christian who is the first to ever concede an agrument and now I am hillbilly fundie wasting your time arguing dogma. I also gave NosyNed just credit for convincing me that the skull evidence was not indeed evidence. And now you somehow make this leap that I have had my creationism defeated ? You , I bet , judging by this post could not in your own words repeat my simple arument of God sense that I have presented through out all these debates. You are clowning me and it is simply a thing a man does not do. Your embarrassing dismissal of post 116 is shocking to me. To say it doesn't warrant an answer is loser talk. Science comes hard for me, this is why I am stalled in my reply to you. It has nothing to do with being out of argument. I am a theist, I have access to unlimited argument. Let the record show that you have quit the debate with me. It seems you do not care, and it shows. Whats wrong with you ? Have you bought the press concerning yourself ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AstroBlue Inactive Member |
quote: Read Exodus 20, specifically "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God". Jealousy is the need for something that someone else has/is receiving. In God's case, credit.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024