Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,0001,001-1,048 next last
To: Right Wing Professor

But humans come out face down
Head down, most of the time. So do chimpanzees, most of the time. The only difference is that humans tend to turn 90 degrees at the last minute so the long axis of the head is along the wider axis of the brith canal. It's not a major change; it may well simply be caused by the pressure of contractions.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/babies.html

Dolphins, sharks, whales...the same!

Nonsense. there is a full set of transitional species for whales and dolphins.

But Giraffes suddenly appear with their enormously lengthened necks with all that entails...with no, absolutely not one, preceding hint of any fossil of anything even remotely like them!

Haven't you ever seen an okapi?

B: An excellent point. The Okapi was actually known from the fossil record before it was *discovered* by western science. That should bake Jehu's noodle.


901 posted on 12/21/2004 3:46:33 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 893 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Evoscience for Evotards...what a waste of time.


902 posted on 12/21/2004 3:47:56 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

You don't even know I am talking about rotational positions in birth along the long axis of the human body, not about butt first, or head first! Awww..never mind!


903 posted on 12/21/2004 3:48:02 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 897 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Maybe, I don't remember and I am too tired to look it up.
I have been more grouchy than normal today, cause I am sick.


904 posted on 12/21/2004 3:53:18 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

There is a priceless contradiction between the creationists here. On the one hand Jehu thinks that millions of years of the pre-cambrian explosion aren't enough; OTOH derheim has every species on earth exploding (from what could be saved on a 450ft boat with all the food for those animals and plants for a year, and food for all the predators for years) in the first 1000 years or so following the disembarkation since we can't see this explosion continuing now and there is no historical record of it. Hilarious.


905 posted on 12/21/2004 3:54:55 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

You don't even know I am talking about rotational positions in birth along the long axis of the human body, not about butt first, or head first! Awww..never mind!

B: I know what you're talking about.I'm just pointing out that in either case, the reason is the same.

B: Sheesh. Your so hard head.


906 posted on 12/21/2004 3:55:34 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

I think you misunderstood just about everything I said and I am feeling too bad right now to go into detail. Besides, from past experience, it would be a waste of time.

As to the sociological dangers of evolution, that is the same misinterpretation of science that literalism is of the Bible.


907 posted on 12/21/2004 3:56:30 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

B:Energy can't be destroyed, per se, but converted into mass and vice versa. THis is observed routinely. Yet again, realizing that he has no facts and no ideas, jehu resorts to his favorite chestnut, the argument from "Personal Astonishment". The basic problem with the argument from persoanl astonishment is that, when you're ignorant, just about everything astonishes you.

There is no "per se," about it, you incredibly smug moron. Energy cannot be destroyed or created...what is in the universe now, (energy wise) is fixed!

B: In theory, the energy content of the Universe is fixed. You state that as if it were a fact. I agree that its probably true.

If I was Right Wing Professor, Shubi, or Thatcher, I would disown your dofus self.

B: You mean "doofus" ? Actually I'm not sure how that should be spelt. All I was doing was expounding on your point.


At least they actually know the ignorant drivel they spout, you are simply a parrot, and not a very bright one at that.

B: Polly wanna cracker?


That energy and mass are convertible I will allow even an insufferable moron like you may know.

B: I appreciate the confidence you have in me.

How your mind ever grasped Einstein's equation is a marvel almost as great as 1 billion monkeys typing out a single meaningful sentence in 1 billion years.

B: It comes as a great surprise to my high school physics teacher as well.

B: Now if only you would put the same effort into learning that you put into insulting, you'd probably realize the seed of this conflict is all in your mind.


908 posted on 12/21/2004 4:48:39 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

A little later I'll post an experiment in which scales were inadvertantly converted to feathers. Scales and feathers are the same stuff, but in different forms.

B: Its now a little later. This is reposted from a previous post of mine:


"Now in case your wondering where feathers came from, consider the proteins which make up feathers are the same ones which make up scales. Isn't interesting how some birds have scales? Ever see a chicken's legs? Feathers are simply evolved scales. One of my favorite papers is "Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital Apoptosis and Scale Formation" by Hongyan Zou and Lee Niswander, Science Vol. 272, 1996, pgs 738-742. The goal of this paper was to understand what transpires during the embryonic development of a chicken. Early in their embryonic development, chicken feet are webbed, later on the "interdigital tissues" (i.e. the webbing) is destroyed when the cells making up these tissues, for lack of a better description, kill themselves (cell apoptosis). The experiment tested an idea that the cells received a biochemical signal which "told" them to undergo apoptosis. The experiment was basically to block the biochemical signal, and see if the digital tissues remain. The experiment was a success.

But now for something really interesting, What Zhou and Niswander also found. From their abstract,

" Expression of dnBMPR (thats an inhibiter of the biochemical suicide signal) in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced cell apoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition SCALES were transformed into FEATHERS"

Folks, thats like trying to invent the pizza and comming up with a helicopter instead.

This research example illustrates a couple of things. First evolving feathers from scales, ain't that big a deal. It also lays waste to the idea that evolution is not an experimental science, which creationists claim on a continual basis. "


909 posted on 12/21/2004 5:11:07 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 879 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Go back and read some of his cut and paste drivel then. He deserved the slap upside the head. I am an accomplished engineer and for someone to lecture me about the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is ludicrous,

B: THere's precious little evidence from you that you're accomplished in anything except as a vertiable fountain of ignorance w.r.t the natural world. Most accomplished engineers that I know, and I know a bunch, particularly at JPL, are aware of the use of Genetic Algorithms in circuit design. You haven't kept up with times.

B: Here's another example for you:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg15621085.000

B: Now lets all watch while Jehu tries to tell us how this circuit was designed, even though nobody understands how it works. THis should be fun.



but what is worse he was in error in his little lecture, there is no "per se," in proved physical law.

B: ROFL. I merely pointed out that while energy can't be destroyed, it can be converted into mass. Most people don't know that. If you understood that, then bully for you! I'm not sure why you want to make a big deal out of it. But hey, whatever floats your boat.



I will reserve "per se" for evolution, since it has the most rickety mathematical scaffolding of any scientific theory.

B: Actually, I think its mathematical underpinnings are well founded, and well studied. Thats why engineers who are actually accomplishing something use Darwinian methods to design circuits which best human designers, even though how the circuit works is not understood. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that like way cool.


And some of the better critics and growing enemies of this "theory," are mathematicians!

B: You mean ignorant ones. According to them, results such as in:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg15621085.000 would be impossible. Who should I believe? Them or my own two eyes? Every mathematical work I've seen which purports to show Evolution is mathematically impossible is based on a mathematical model which has nothing to do with evolution. They all seem to start with the assumption that evolution occurs via purely random processes. Which of course, is simply not true. Mutation is random with respect to fitness, natural selection is not. NS is not random, but harnesses the randomness in the same manner as a genetic algorithm.

B: THe hallmark of a great theory, is that it results in the creation of whole new fields. TOE certainly has done that. Stochastic hill climbing methods and immunology are but two that owe there existence to Darwin. Doesn't that just bake your noodle?



Who demand accuracy and specifics. Not the unbelievable evolutionist's practice of throwing shit

B: Profanity is unnecessary.

on the blackboard and seeing what sticks "Punctuated Equilibrium indeed!"

B: Actually solutions from Genetic Algorithms in the course of their development actually do show something like PE behavior, in that the solution won't change much during the course of several iterations, and then bam, rapid change.

B: Methinks you doth protest too much.


910 posted on 12/21/2004 8:05:20 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Archaeopteryx! OK, now click your heels together 3 times and say, "I wish I was in Kansas." That is an even better fantasy. Look back in one of my previous posts for MY evolutionary professor who disagrees...kay, you guys boor me.

Evidently Jehu is referring to this post (number 657), in which he says

Note the following from Dr. Alan Feducia of University of Northern Carolina, one of the world's leading bird experts AND an evolutionist. ‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.’2 Archaeopteryx is the premier (and just about the only species) put forth as a "transitional" form. And yet one of the leading experts on birds who IS an evolutionist himself is honest enough to admit "it is a BIRD!" And this labeling game just goes on anyway.

Feduccia’s ‘The Origin and Evolution of Birds’ is a wonderful book. While it’s by no means mainstream, it’s interesting, and opinionated, and chock-full of facts, a commodity creationists are starved for. Let’s start with Chapter 1, Paragraph 1….

The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica , and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian….The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms – what has come to be called a ‘missing link’, a Rosetta Stone of evolution.

It is clear from the above that Jehu, either from malice or from willful disregard of the truth, has represented Feduccia as saying the exact opposite of what Feduccia in fact said. Feduccia explicitly refers to Archaeopteryx as a missing link, the epitome of a transitional form. Jehu tried to pretend he said the opposite. You might say Jehu has borne false witness; me, I just call Jehu a liar.

911 posted on 12/21/2004 8:25:42 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

LOL. I wonder which creationist crapsite Jehu got that "fact" from. You can tell when Jehu is typing lies because his fingers move on the keyboard.


912 posted on 12/22/2004 12:04:59 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 911 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

LOL. I wonder which creationist crapsite Jehu got that "fact" from.

B: Sounds like an AIG chestnut.

You can tell when Jehu is typing lies because his fingers move on the keyboard.

B: Anybody wanna take bets as to whether Jehu will apologize for his misinformation, or complain that he was "tag teamed"?


913 posted on 12/22/2004 1:30:53 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

LOL. I wonder which creationist crapsite Jehu got that "fact" from.

B: Its a Sarfati "special" on AiG. THere's nothing quite like a "Lies for Jesus" website.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp


914 posted on 12/22/2004 3:35:53 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
A lot of Jehu's other ideas seem to be derived from this book which a quick google turned up for me.

It is the creationists who maintain that scientists cannot think for themselves. Which makes it curious that nearly all of creationist arguments in forums like this appear to be copied without acknowledgement from religiously inspired websites. (and almost never from any peer-reviewed literature or real-world observations or experiments)

915 posted on 12/22/2004 4:06:01 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

It must be a good book anyway, because Dembski and Behe endorse it.


916 posted on 12/22/2004 4:10:33 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Feeling better placemarker


917 posted on 12/22/2004 5:08:16 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
It seems that Simmons has been a practicing MD (in a smalltown family practice?) for his working life. That obviously makes him well placed to overturn the whole of modern biology.

Reading through the 5000 word summary of his article it is replete with wilful misunderstandings, canards, straw men, non-sequiturs, and arguments from personal incredulity. To name but a few that he wheels out:

Darwin knew nothing of modern genetics.

Evolution cannot account for human genius.

Darwin's doubts about the fossil record.

Lack of fossil evidence for whales

Evolution characterised as "random" and "coincidence"

Here is a direct quote from the article which gives you an impression of the level of scholarship involved, I don't know about Dembski, but surely Behe must be embarassed by the company he is keeping:

Then again, is surviving a matter of survival of the fittest- or of the luckiest? Questions such as these cloud evolutionary thought. Even the most ardent supporters of the theory of evolution still call it a theory-with very good reason: no knowledgeable scientist has ever called it the "facts of evolution."

918 posted on 12/22/2004 7:55:40 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Whatsits-"Then again, is surviving a matter of survival of the fittest- or of the luckiest?"

In his case it MUST have been the luckiest. LOL


919 posted on 12/22/2004 12:10:51 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

A lot of Jehu's other ideas seem to be derived from this book which a quick google turned up for me.
It is the creationists who maintain that scientists cannot think for themselves. Which makes it curious that nearly all of creationist arguments in forums like this appear to be copied without acknowledgement from religiously inspired websites. (and almost never from any peer-reviewed literature or real-world observations or experiments)

B: Creationists are the masters of turn speak.


920 posted on 12/22/2004 12:27:39 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

My arguments are my own unless otherwise stated. Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.


921 posted on 12/22/2004 3:08:06 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

My arguments are my own unless otherwise stated. Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.

B: Well your claim regarding Feduccia's view of Archeaopteryx was falsified. Your credibility has taken a huge nose dive.

B: After you apologize for misrepresnting Feduccia, present your claims regarding the Ark and the Noachian deluge, and we can then discuss those.


922 posted on 12/22/2004 3:14:05 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I understood you perfectly. You have no clue of the doctrine of original sin. It is not some optional piece of equipment for the believer.

You dilute that doctrine and it will pervade everything you think about redemption and the real work of Christ, even if it is an unconscious rot of spirit it works away. Little foxes spoil the vine.

The redemptive work of Christ is not some religious exercise it is a pure scientific function of spiritual laws. Or why do you think God started the education of humanity via law? It is our tutor to Christ where the actual thing...is real, the law is a template of the real. And law is exact not vague.

What Christ did is only real and effective for each one of us if we inherited sin from Adam. Not some mishmash of descent through lines of species. If it were not an issue then God would not have spent most of human history to winnow out the line of descent to Mary who birthed Christ. The whole Old Testament is the story of God narrowing down the search for the line that produces Christ.

If God had not set this up by laws and definite (equation like principles) then He could just wave his hand and all would be forgiven. You are in error, and worse you are a minister and are leading others into error.
923 posted on 12/22/2004 3:19:44 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
None of you could polish Behe or Dembski's shoes...but you knew that. I don't really envy you your belief in this worthless theory since it does seem to feed your shriveled up little souls that are incapable of wonder. You want to turn the wonders of life and creation into a circle-jerk of process that is your right and wish. Enjoy.
924 posted on 12/22/2004 3:27:32 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
What you cannot get into your wooden head is you are trying to disprove I.D. by a computer program that was designed by someone intelligent...unless it was written by you, which would then make me believe that random meaningless noise could produce something worthwhile.

Far as math goes, you give me something like Maxwell's equations which describe the electromagnetic force with sheer elegance...that describe the force? field? particles? great sucking sound? great pumpkin? of evolution, kay?

None of this population statistics and the other nonsense that explains NOTHING, that evolutionary biologists trot out as meaning anything. Some equations that can be worked with specific inputs and produce SPECIES! Or what? Maybe it is all too complex for that? What would that be called?...a process that is too complex to be described mathematically, what could we call that? Something Special? Hmmmm ( cue tone of SNL Church Lady)

I am glad most of you idiots don't design bridges or anything useful.
925 posted on 12/22/2004 3:39:38 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
Here is the link: Evolution Sucks When you're done reading it you can kiss my created ass.
926 posted on 12/22/2004 3:50:15 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I see you are impressed by degrees, pretensions and the Peacock like preening of so many of our psuedo intellectuals, an not truth. Same thing could be said of the Pharisees. If I'm ever sick I would first pick a small town doctor (not that Simmons is one) before some Ivory Tower jerk that could not diagnose a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester.


927 posted on 12/22/2004 3:55:36 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

I understood you perfectly. You have no clue of the doctrine of original sin. It is not some optional piece of equipment for the believer.

You dilute that doctrine and it will pervade everything you think about redemption and the real work of Christ, even if it is an unconscious rot of spirit it works away. Little foxes spoil the vine.

B: Ah yes, the battle cry of the god botherer. "Only I know the truth"..

B: ROFL. The world is getting tired of people like you.


928 posted on 12/22/2004 4:19:51 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

I see you are impressed by degrees, pretensions and the Peacock like preening of so many of our psuedo intellectuals, an not truth. Same thing could be said of the Pharisees. If I'm ever sick I would first pick a small town doctor (not that Simmons is one) before some Ivory Tower jerk that could not diagnose a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester.

B: Be my guest Jehu. That would help clean up the gene pool.




929 posted on 12/22/2004 4:20:46 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 927 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
You want to turn the wonders of life and creation into a circle-jerk of process that is your right and wish. Enjoy.

...and...

When you're done reading it you can kiss my created ass.

One of my nephews used to used obscene language when he was caught in a lie. He grew out of it at age 8 or so.

Do you learn this sort of language in Church?

930 posted on 12/22/2004 4:39:35 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

What you cannot get into your wooden head is you are trying to disprove I.D. by a computer program that was designed by someone intelligent...unless it was written by you, which would then make me believe that random meaningless noise could produce something worthwhile.

B: Hilarious. The algorithm is what nature uses. Its the same design, same basic process, different context. If you understood anything at all about mathematics, and a competent engineer would (that leaves you out), mathematics is independent of context.


Far as math goes, you give me something like Maxwell's equations which describe the electromagnetic force with sheer elegance...that describe the force? field? particles? great sucking sound? great pumpkin? of evolution, kay?

B: ROFL. *Real* engineers use the algorithm. THere is no closed form solution for such stochastic methods. Again, if you had actual training in advanced mathematics, you'd know that. The algorithm works, and produces designs not understandable by humans. Hence when we see complex designs not fathomable to us in nature, we shouldn't be to surprised, given that at the heart of the *natural design* process, lurks stochastic algorithms.

None of this population statistics and the other nonsense that explains NOTHING, that evolutionary biologists trot out as meaning anything.


B: LOL.

Some equations that can be worked with specific inputs and produce SPECIES!

B: Interesting point. If we can't write an equation for it, it can't happen?

B: Creationism gets more nutty every day.



Or what? Maybe it is all too complex for that? What would that be called?...a process that is too complex to be described mathematically, what could we call that? Something Special? Hmmmm ( cue tone of SNL Church Lady)

B: THe process can be described mathematically, population geneticists have been doing for decades, and now mathematicians and engineers. We can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance, but this creatobabbler demands we should calculate "species".

B: Its clear that there are defects in the ways some engineers are educated.

I am glad most of you idiots don't design bridges or anything useful.

B: Yeah. OK. Perhaps you should retire from Matell's.


931 posted on 12/22/2004 4:39:41 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"The statements that it can easily be discerned and that the supreme being would bother to remedy it if it did discern it are a pair of presumed conclusions. Even if there is a creator it is entirely likely that in the universe as a whole human beings are a totally insignificant and irrelevant accident as far as the creator is concerned."

And yet you presume that the Creator would not care. Once again, we will have to agree to differ, I see that even if it is an accident, that the Creator would treat us with care, and you presume that he would not.

"In this case your extension of my analogy works against you. The experiment (life on earth/the petri dish) may be already completed and the interesting results are noted. The scientist/God turns away and doesn't care as the cleaner/devil holds the dish of believers up to the flames. Perhaps the dish containing believers makes a pretty colour in the bunsen whereas the non-believers aren't so interesting and just get tossed in the trash. The point I am making here is that the motivation of supernatural beings might well be completely inscrutable to us (I would expect them to be inscrutable, you don't). The burning bacteria screaming in what seems like eternal pain wouldn't understand the cleaner's motivation, or why their creator was no longer interested."

Your entire argument lies in metaphor whereas mine lies in logic (i.e. post #126). By this analogy, you admit the existence of a god, and therefore are doomed with the rest of us anyway (if your analogy is true).

Let's extend the analogy some more: If the creator is omnipotent, as you are now indicating, why would he need a cleaner? He would not need one. He could merely create another for his next in a series of never ending experiments.

Sorry for waiting so long to repost. I've been playing a new computer game, and have otherwise been working the rest of the time.
932 posted on 12/22/2004 6:19:15 PM PST by conservative_crusader (The voice of truth, tells me a different story. The voice of truth says do not be afraid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

bookmark


933 posted on 12/22/2004 6:37:09 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Nice rant.


934 posted on 12/22/2004 6:52:55 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
I see you are impressed by degrees, pretensions and the Peacock like preening of so many of our psuedo intellectuals, an not truth. Same thing could be said of the Pharisees. If I'm ever sick I would first pick a small town doctor (not that Simmons is one) before some Ivory Tower jerk that could not diagnose a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester.

I am not impressed by bits of paper at all but I predicted your response. I never said that to be a smalltown doctor was to be a bad doctor. However it is evident from his writings that Simmons knows little of science and little of the ToE.

935 posted on 12/22/2004 11:15:35 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 927 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
I am glad most of you idiots don't design bridges or anything useful.

LOL. As it happens I am a Civil Engineer. Does that frighten you? I hope so.

936 posted on 12/22/2004 11:19:14 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader
And yet you presume that the Creator would not care. Once again, we will have to agree to differ, I see that even if it is an accident, that the Creator would treat us with care, and you presume that he would not.

I don't presume that he wouldn't and I don't presume that he would. I don't presume anything about Him. You project your own niceness onto a being whose motives I maintain are likely to be entirely inscrutable to us were He to exist.

Your entire argument lies in metaphor whereas mine lies in logic (i.e. post #126). By this analogy, you admit the existence of a god, and therefore are doomed with the rest of us anyway (if your analogy is true). Let's extend the analogy some more: If the creator is omnipotent, as you are now indicating, why would he need a cleaner? He would not need one. He could merely create another for his next in a series of never ending experiments. Sorry for waiting so long to repost. I've been playing a new computer game, and have otherwise been working the rest of the time.

The purpose of my metaphor was to explain a hypothetical case in which belief in a divine creator could be punished.

I would have thought it clear that I only admit the existence of a God for the purposes of that analogy, not in general. I have not indicated that the hypothetical creator is necessarily omnipotent; omnipotence is merely one possibility. For the avoidance of confusion please attach the words "might" and "possibly" and "hypothetically" to all statements I make in analogical arguments about the creator; I would have thought that obvious seeing as I am an atheist.

937 posted on 12/22/2004 11:28:28 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
None of you could polish Behe or Dembski's shoes...but you knew that. I don't really envy you your belief in this worthless theory since it does seem to feed your shriveled up little souls that are incapable of wonder. You want to turn the wonders of life and creation into a circle-jerk of process that is your right and wish. Enjoy.

It is quite funny and predictable that you go into rant mode every time you are caught in a lie or a contradiction.

938 posted on 12/22/2004 11:30:29 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
My arguments are my own unless otherwise stated. Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.

Presumably that means that you are Simmons, since your arguments are identical to his which I think we can take to be statistically unlikely unless you are one and the same person. No wonder you got upset when I dismissed the book that you wrote.

I would be delighted for you to explain how Noah's Ark could be a true story. I'm all agog. Perhaps you should put it in your next book, Simmons.

939 posted on 12/22/2004 11:37:10 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Here is the link: Evolution Sucks When you're done reading it you can kiss my created ass.

You mistakenly posted a link to a creationist report of a Feduccia lecture. Perhaps you can redirect us to the place where Feduccia himself says that Archx is not a TF.

940 posted on 12/22/2004 11:56:36 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Jehu coming up with a proper reference to Feduccia saying that "Archx is not a transitional form" is about as likely as Jehu coming up with a reference to the "Darwin died in despair" claim, or Jehu substantiating his claim that Popper said that "ToE isn't science", or Jehu coming up with an explanation of the remarkable coincidence between his independent ideas debunking evolution and Simmons book.

Jehu is building up a remarkable track-record in this thread. For lying and hateful rants, anyway. Terrific evidence for the doubters of the quality of anti-evolutionary thought.

941 posted on 12/23/2004 12:07:39 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Oops, repost to correct innappropriate italicisation:

Jehu coming up with a proper reference to Feduccia saying that "Archx is not a transitional form" is about as likely as Jehu coming up with a reference to the "Darwin died in despair" claim, or Jehu substantiating his claim that Popper said that "ToE isn't science", or Jehu coming up with an explanation of the remarkable coincidence between his independent ideas debunking evolution and Simmons book.

Jehu is building up a remarkable track-record in this thread. For lying and hateful rants, anyway. Terrific evidence for the doubters of the quality of anti-evolutionary thought.

942 posted on 12/23/2004 12:42:13 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 941 | View Replies]

To: Jehu; derheimwill
Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.

Doubtless (if you believe that the story is true) you will include an explanation of where the water came from and where it went to (as a good engineer, Jehu). IIRC the biblical account variously claims the source as "The fountains of the earth" (artesian water?) and 40 days of rain. It also states that the earth including mountains was completely covered to a depth of 15 cubits (I have just looked up in KJ).

Taking the 5 miles above sea level of mount Everest as a reference point that has to be submerged the requirement can be calculated as around 1 billion cubic miles of water appearing over a period of 40 days. To put it another way, that much water would be a sphere over 1000 miles in diameter. Hope that helps.

Presumably you will also account for the total lack of any genetic or geological evidence of this event. In fact the total lack of any evidence at all for this event, other than the fact that lots of ancient civilisations have flood stories... Gee I wonder why that would be? I don't suppose it has anything to do with ancient civilisations all growing up along rivers that occasionally flooded catastrophically. (perhaps people even occasionally saved themselves and a tiny portion of their livestock on a boat or raft)

943 posted on 12/23/2004 1:53:31 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

"seeing as I am an atheist"

Why are you an atheist?


944 posted on 12/23/2004 2:15:47 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 937 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; Jehu

"LOL. As it happens I am a Civil Engineer. Does that frighten you? I hope so."

My daughter is a Civil Engineer and she finds evolution quite convincing.

My fear about someone who won't rationally consider scientific data in biology may carry over to bridge design.
Please tell us specifically, Jehu, what state you have designed bridges in and where these are located.

A true Christian would do this for a brother.


945 posted on 12/23/2004 2:19:58 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 936 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I am an atheist because (a) I don't find any of the specific organized religions that mostly major on the assertion that all the other religions are false even marginally convincing. (b) I don't find the Aquinas-style uncaused cause argument for some kind of creator convincing. (Please note that I am not a "strong" atheist in the sense of one who believes that it has been proved that no God exists)

Of course the fact that I was brought up as an atheist probably contributes. As I've stated in my arguments with ConCrusader I contend that religious belief is not largely a matter of choice.

946 posted on 12/23/2004 2:35:46 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 944 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Ah, you may be under a misapprehension of who has said what.

Jehu says he is some kind of electronics engineer. It is me, the atheist supporter of evolution who is a Civil Engineer. (and not really even that. I was pulling Jehu's leg as it happens, I just trained as a Civil Engineer and now work in software, so my qualifications to pontificate about this stuff are about as good as Simmons)

So if you have any safety concerns it should be about electrical devices designed by Jehu. ;)

947 posted on 12/23/2004 2:42:36 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 945 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I just find it interesting that someone as rational as you has not looked into the fact based reasons for believing in God.


948 posted on 12/23/2004 3:26:40 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Oh Jehu designs stuff. That explains it. ;-)


949 posted on 12/23/2004 3:28:02 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 947 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I just find it interesting that someone as rational as you has not looked into the fact based reasons for believing in God.

Perhaps I have, and haven't been convinced... care to cite a URL or book you think I should read?

950 posted on 12/23/2004 3:36:15 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 948 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,0001,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson