Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What I have noticed about these debates...
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 211 of 238 (52386)
08-26-2003 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jcgirl92
08-26-2003 4:23 AM


The law of the United States of America was (if you read a bit of history) founded on the principals found in the Ten Commandments.
I think Schraf has replied already (I'm just catching up on this thread today) but I thought I'd reply.
Actually, the law of the United States is not based on the Ten Commandments. After all, what are the commandments? Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc, ok, those are reflected in American legal code. But then, those same laws appear in almost every culture, Christian or otherwise.
And what about the rest? "Honor thy parents"? That's not a law. "Thou shall keep no other gods but me"? We have a constitution that specifically prohibits that kind of thinking. "Thou shalt heep the sabbath"? People work on Sunday all the time. "Thou shall not covet"? How could we make that a law? Coveting is the base of our economy, after all.
This country stands for cultural and religious pluralism, participatory government, and freedom of the press and speech. You'd be hard-pressed to find those in the Ten Commandments - or anywhere in the bible. And a government shrine that says "Thou shall keep no other gods but me" is an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion, and is hardly inclusive to persons of other religious traditions.
So, no. None of our laws - except the obvious ones - are based on the Ten Commandments any more than they're based on the Code of Hammurabi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jcgirl92, posted 08-26-2003 4:23 AM jcgirl92 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-26-2003 5:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 238 (52387)
08-26-2003 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by crashfrog
08-26-2003 5:40 PM


I got ticketed for coveting my neighbor's oxen yesterday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2003 5:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 213 of 238 (52395)
08-26-2003 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by A_Christian
08-26-2003 2:45 PM


A Christian,
Because the data was presented during the James Kennedy Program.
What makes you think you're so great.
Not that you'll post here again, but if you are going to make assertions you are going to have to support them, & "I saw a TV program about" it isn't good enough.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by A_Christian, posted 08-26-2003 2:45 PM A_Christian has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4136 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 214 of 238 (52401)
08-26-2003 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by A_Christian
08-26-2003 12:00 PM


To understand the problem let us look at a simple problem. The
height of the Alps. An evolutionistic science teacher would say that
there is not enough water to have covered them by a FLOOD. What is
lacking, is proof that the ALPS were that high prior to the FLOOD.
This the evolutionist will not bother to discuss.
I've only read up to this post, #198, but 213 have been written. I have fifteen more to read. Let me make a prediction before I read them.
Evolutionists on this forum will happily discuss this issue in those fifteen posts, even though it's off topic and against forum rules!
On the other hand, the creationist--that would be you--will duck and run as soon as the evolutionists have had their say, because there will be nowhere he can turn for any factual, honest response to the evolutionists arguments.
That's what always happens, 100% of the time, and it is the number one, main reason that I am no longer a YEC. It will happen this time, too.
......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by A_Christian, posted 08-26-2003 12:00 PM A_Christian has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4136 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 215 of 238 (52404)
08-26-2003 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by AdminBrian
08-26-2003 2:42 PM


Congratulations, Admin "wet blanket" Brian, I haven't noticed any of the other admins quite so directly rebuked by a wayward member. You moved right to the front in your first couple of weeks! :-)
On a more serious note, I don't think I've seen any other poster quite so unaware of his/her own behavior. Sure Salty or Scotty may have slaughtered the rules here or there, but they both knew they brought trouble on themselves. A_Christian needs an award from "Most Oblivious Poster."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by AdminBrian, posted 08-26-2003 2:42 PM AdminBrian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by AdminBrian, posted 08-27-2003 11:19 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4447 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 216 of 238 (52412)
08-26-2003 10:37 PM


What I have noticed about these debates is that often times they tend to run off topic. Also, there seems to be an awful lot of passive scorn and half hearted attempts at being witty that one must endure however one chooses(with the exception of disregarding the forum guidelines....(eep). Although, personally speaking, I find it informative in all regards. And, at times, the folly lightens the load.
------------------
love,
weary
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 217 of 238 (52455)
08-27-2003 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by A_Christian
08-26-2003 2:45 PM


quote:
I'm not impressed with
most of what evolutionists THINK they know. It is what they
want everyone else to accept is what bothers me.
Hi AC,
I am not surprised that you are unimpressed. You have even indicated that you basically do not understand science at all so it is a trivial matter for you to dismiss the ACTUAL research on which scientific theories are based.
You claimed it will take years of scientific work to prove creationism...how about giving it a start...
1. propose a testable hypothesis of creation
2. demonstrate how it is falsifiable
3. indicate the supporting evidence
4. show how it better explains the accumulated data than the ToE
If you cannot do this then creationism will never be science...
quote:
I enjoy the
way evolutionist belittle those that disagree with them. Don't
you know that only make you look vular and cheap.
I enjoy when those who admit they do not know much about a subject equate their opinions with scientific theory and then get upset when scientists don't roll over and accept what they say...it those who make the assertions look ignorant and arrogant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by A_Christian, posted 08-26-2003 2:45 PM A_Christian has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 218 of 238 (52470)
08-27-2003 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by A_Christian
08-26-2003 2:45 PM


Ok..just scrolled back and saw that AC got himself suspended...so in case he does not come back...can any like minded individual please present or at least summarize the "data" presented during the James Kennedy program?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by A_Christian, posted 08-26-2003 2:45 PM A_Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Macavity, posted 08-28-2003 1:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 238 (52492)
08-27-2003 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by truthlover
08-26-2003 8:58 PM


LOL, Cheers TL,
I was seriously thinking 'is it me?'!
AdminBrian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by truthlover, posted 08-26-2003 8:58 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Macavity
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 238 (52590)
08-28-2003 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Mammuthus
08-27-2003 7:51 AM


Summarizing the
Mammuthus,
One of the latest Kennedy programs on evolution (Real Player) is entitled "Evolution and you." It's about eight minutes long and can be found here:
http://www.coralridge.org/coralridgehour.asp
You can easily locate this (video) program by typing "evolution" in the Search Archive field. Sorry, M. There's really not much in the way of "data" to summarize. But I do have a capsule review: Evolution is bad. Very, very bad. And if you "believe" in evolution... you're bad. Still, I recommend you watch this thing if for no other reason than the obligatory Colin Patterson (sp?) quote...
I hope this isn't the type of program AC was referring to.
--Macavity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2003 7:51 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Mammuthus, posted 08-28-2003 4:04 AM Macavity has not replied
 Message 223 by John, posted 08-28-2003 9:40 AM Macavity has not replied

  
itsme
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 238 (52598)
08-28-2003 3:31 AM


quote:
Topic: What I have noticed about these debates...
------------------
itsme writes:
I was unsuccessfully able to disprove evolution using only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelation...so now I am currently working on proving the theory of evolution using only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelation...then I will be an evolutionary creation ist,
'cause I'll tell ya what, if I get all the way up there and there is a god or a devil....I'm gonna be frickin' pissed!!

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 222 of 238 (52603)
08-28-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Macavity
08-28-2003 1:07 AM


Re: Summarizing the
Thanks Macavity,
AC was claiming that the data that supposedly refutes evolution is contained in this lecture...I will take a look at the program later though it will probably give me a headache.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Macavity, posted 08-28-2003 1:07 AM Macavity has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 238 (52644)
08-28-2003 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Macavity
08-28-2003 1:07 AM


Re: Summarizing the
I can summarize. Whatever happens, blame evolution-- unless it is stuff Christians like.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Macavity, posted 08-28-2003 1:07 AM Macavity has not replied

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 238 (52919)
08-29-2003 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by nator
08-26-2003 12:35 PM


Responding to Schrafinator
"Opinion is not the main power of science. Logic, evidence, and repeatability is."
Repeatability is a power and asset of experimental science, but not necessarily of historical science where we try and examine the past.
As for logic and evidence - they are important in science, but can only go so far.
"Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear." J. Shreeve
I would venture to say that life is only 10% what happens and 90% how it is interpreted!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by nator, posted 08-26-2003 12:35 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 08-30-2003 7:08 PM jcgirl92 has not replied

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 238 (52925)
08-29-2003 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Quetzal
08-26-2003 5:53 AM


Responding to Quetzal
Thanks for explaining what the problem seems to be with the whole "kind" issue.
Macroevolution is a gaining of information - correct? In other words, DNA information must be added to add on new characteristics that weren't there before - right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Quetzal, posted 08-26-2003 5:53 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2003 5:44 AM jcgirl92 has not replied
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 08-30-2003 7:49 PM jcgirl92 has not replied
 Message 229 by Quetzal, posted 09-01-2003 4:20 AM jcgirl92 has not replied
 Message 230 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-01-2003 6:09 AM jcgirl92 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