Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,148 Year: 5,405/9,624 Month: 430/323 Week: 70/204 Day: 12/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 120 (30099)
01-24-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chara
12-09-2002 1:48 AM


quote:
The thing is, we don't get to judge those who don't believe by the same standards ... but they do get to judge us.
If you are talking about the passage from the Bible that goes, "Judge not, lest ye be judged.", it doesn't say anything about not being allowed to judge others.
It's OK to judge others, as long as you understand that if you do, you open yourself up to judgement, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chara, posted 12-09-2002 1:48 AM Chara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Satcomm, posted 01-24-2003 10:12 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 120 (30101)
01-24-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jet
01-21-2003 9:05 PM


quote:
Personally, I openly reject the TOE because it refuses to abide by the true tenets of science,
Please list the "true tenets of science", and please explain how the ToE violates them.
quote:
is incapable of explaining the existance of life,
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).
As has been pointed out to you umpteen times, the ToE does not deal with how life got here. It explains what happened to life once it emerged.
Do you likewise criticize the study of aerodynamics because it does not explain where wind comes from?
quote:
and requires far too much blind faith to believe in its' unsubstantiated claims.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jet, posted 01-21-2003 9:05 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jet, posted 01-27-2003 3:55 PM nator has replied
 Message 58 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:57 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 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 2279 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 2279 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 2279 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 2279 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

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 120 (30825)
01-31-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Satcomm
01-30-2003 3:19 PM


Why do you disagree with the ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Satcomm, posted 01-30-2003 3:19 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Satcomm, posted 01-31-2003 11:45 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 120 (31027)
02-02-2003 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Philip
02-02-2003 1:48 AM


quote:
Great definition (and scientific) until generalized beyond empirical cause-effect relationships.
What other kinds of relationships can you observe other than emperical, Philip?
quote:
Problems arise with utterly falacious usage of the ToE when applying micro-evolution to mega-ToE's ... i.e., on stellar and biological levels ...
Examples from nature, please.
quote:
At this point I think we'd all agree our scientific definition ostensibly begs metaphysical assistance to explain: the gaps,
God of the Gaps? We don't have perfect knowledge, so Godidit?
Are you STILL hanging on to this fallacy?
quote:
missing links/chains,
Define "missing links/chains", please.
quote:
first cause(s),
Since the Theory of Evolution deals with how life changed after it first appeared, and not how the ftrst life got here, this is a strawman.
Philip, you keep embarrasing yourself by getting these basic facts wrong.
quote:
entropic effects barriers,
Please define "entropic effects barriers."
quote:
kinds,
Please define "kinds".
quote:
immensities,
Please define, "emmensities" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
harmonies,
Please define "harmonies" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
symetries,
Please define "symetries" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
proportions,
Please define "proportions" as it relates to the ToE.
quote:
and other empirical excellencies we observe.
Once again, Philip, you use an awful lot of words to say something largely deviod of content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 1:48 AM Philip has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 120 (31128)
02-03-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jet
02-03-2003 2:49 AM


quote:
One need not be a scientist to see the wonderous design inherent in all living things. Even given the time frame that evolutionists favor, evolution is a poor excuse for an explanation as to the enormous complexity of even the most simple of life forms, let alone the existance of mankind.
Just aren't in the mood to answer direct question, are you?
I'll try again.
How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't understand yet, or do not have the ability to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jet, posted 02-03-2003 2:49 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 11:11 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 75 of 120 (31129)
02-03-2003 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Philip
02-02-2003 10:12 PM


So how do we tell the difference between a God-made gap and a gap in our knowledge that is there because we simply don't understand yet, or maybe don't have the capacity to understand?
BTW, you listed a whole bunch of undefined and unexplained terms as "evidence" for why the ToE doesn't work. I asked for examples and clarification, yet you offer none at all.
If you don't know, or are not willing to share, what any of those terms you used mean, then why use them in the first place? They are meaningless if you are unable to explain how they actually throw doubt on the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Philip, posted 02-02-2003 10:12 PM Philip has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 76 of 120 (31130)
02-03-2003 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
02-03-2003 10:35 AM


I have no doubts whatsoever that Jet understands my analogy perfectly.
He is trying to wriggle out from under it so he won't have to admit that the was wrong about something; namely, that the ToE doesn't cover how life got here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 10:35 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 10:53 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 120 (31614)
02-07-2003 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jet
02-06-2003 11:11 PM


So, this means that you AREN'T going to answer the question, "How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't understand yet, or do not have the ability to understand?"
If you have no other method than "special people with the Spirit inside can tell, and other people can't", then I don't think anyone cares.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 11:11 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Jet, posted 02-10-2003 11:28 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 120 (31617)
02-07-2003 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Jet
02-06-2003 11:24 PM


Jet: Sorry! This seems like another poor use of an analogy. Your analogy seems as illogical an analogy as my saying, "Do you criticize creationism because it does not explain where God comes from?"
Exactly! You understand! Creationism does not need to explain where God came from to be scientific (it falls flat in other areas), because that's beyond the scope of Creationism.
Likewise, the chemical origins of life are beyond the scope of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Jet, posted 02-06-2003 11:24 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Jet, posted 02-10-2003 11:59 PM nator 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