Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Old Landmarks adjusted the question after acknowledging that Guitar did not believe there was a real Adam.
That is hard to miss."

When I said that Adam never existed, there was no reason to further deal with the question. The question was just a way to get around the implications of saying that God could make the world APPEAR to be 15 billion years old but actually have it only be 6,000 years. The question lacked any intelligent purpose, beyond distraction. I treated it as such. It deserved to be ignored.

"He wasn't being asked to believe the story, only to answer a question about the story, big diffence."

If I don't believe the story, then there was no point in answering it.

[labette]

Thanks, Fester.

Send me the bill for your Excedrin. It's the least I can do.

[OriginalIntent]

The question lacked any intelligent purpose, beyond distraction.

He sure challenged you and said he could prove it was just an opinion that you were expressing. That was the purpose he gave you. It was to prove you wrong.

You should have taken the challenge to answer the question and then point out the flaws in his arguments as he presented them. It could have gotten interesting, at least more interesting than name-calling.

It still looks like you were afraid to answer the question at any rate.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He sure challenged you and said he could prove it was just an opinion that you were expressing. That was the purpose he gave you. It was to prove you wrong."

No, it was to distract. It didn't work.

"You should have taken the challenge to answer the question..."

I did answer it, in the way it deserved to be answered. I said I don't believe there ever was an Adam. There was no point taking the silly hypothetical any further. It was obvious where he was going with the question, and there was no way to answer it as stated without having him be able to say, *But God could have just made him APPEAR to be in his 20's!* That means we can't trust anything we see around us, because it could all be a trick.

My point is valid; any *God* that makes the universe APPEAR to be 15 billion years old but really is only 6,000 years old is a lying trickster God. I do not say that such a God actually exists, just that there are people who claim such a God exists. The question about Adam would in no way challenge my claim, as there is no way to answer it. It's like asking when I stopped beating my wife.

"It still looks like you were afraid to answer the question at any rate."

I did answer it, in the way it deserved.

"It could have gotten interesting, at least more interesting than name-calling."

Then he shouldn't have called me names.

[b_sharp]

Asking about Adam is irrelevant. The argument of Biblical age vs. Scientific age is based on physical evidence. There is no physical evidence of Adam.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Exactly.

[OriginalIntent]

Then he shouldn't have called me names.

What? Old Landmarks just kept asking you questions, he didn't call you names.

You repeatedly tried to insult him, but he didn't call you any names that I saw.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What? Old Landmarks just kept asking you questions, he didn't call you names."

Um, yes he did.

"You repeatedly tried to insult him."

No, he repeatedly insulted me by implying I was a coward for not directly answering his silly question. When he asks an intelligent question, I will answer it directly.

What bugged him so much was that I saw through his question as being the diversion it was and refused to play along with his game. As many other people tried to answer the question, and he didn't answer them, it was obvious he was trolling me. Let he stew in it. I really don't care.

And now I will do the same with you. The game is over. Good night.

[OriginalIntent]

[Old Landmarks]...didn't call you any names that I saw.

Um, yes he did.

No he did not.

Show me the post and the name he called you. I'll be waiting.

As many other people tried to answer the question, and he didn't answer them...he was trolling me.

No, try again. He went after you because you were the one offering the opinion he wanted to expose, not the others. Oh please, you were obviously trying to offend and he took you up on it and ignored your buddies who tried repeatedly to get you off the hook.

I doubt he is stewing, I know I wouldn't be, especially since he went unchallenged.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Bye Troll, I'm not playing your game. :)

[b_sharp]

"I doubt he is stewing, I know I wouldn't be, especially since he went unchallenged."

This is untrue. I answered his question in post 485

He did not answer me but continued to ask the same question of others. Why did he bypass my direct answer to his question and continue to act as if it had not been answered?

Courtesy ping to CarolinaGuitarman and Old Landmarks.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Courtesy ping to CarolinaGuitarman..."

Appreciated, but I'm getting out of this thread. The troll ratio is getting too high to take.

[OriginalIntent]

I am hardly a troll. Your tactic of name-calling as a diversion is not going to work. Now back to the issue of your false accusation.

I called you on your false accusation that Old Landmarks called you names, he did not call you a name.

Twice now, you have said he called you names, now show me the post where he called you a name or admit you just made that false accusation up.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Last time. Bye Troll. :)

[OriginalIntent]

Post 649 says that others answered, so let me clarify. Yes others did answer.

OL's challenge was to the one who was offering the opinion, Guitarman, and that challenge for Guitarman to answer the question and then test his opinion went unchallenged. Glad I could clear up the minor semantics.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is fairly apparent where the name calling originates and what the name is. I've been called the same more than once, typically in cases where no sound argument against my position is to be found. The dogmatic evolutionist cannot, and will not, respond substantively to my posts. They are loathe to do so. They either flee or soil their verbal trousers.

Nevertheless, because their position is not entirely one of fantasy and not entirely without merit from the standpoint of reasonable discourse, I am willing to grant the name calling despite their inability to present some cause other than intelligent design as explicative of the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.

What do they propose scientifically as responsible for the lack of chaos in this intelligible universe? If you want to hear the sound of crickets, just ask.

[gunsofaugust]

Namecalling, juvenile insults, hurling false accusations, obfuscation.

Those are Carolina Guitarman's defining characteristics. Glad to see him get caught red handed and exposed.

[b_sharp]

"Nevertheless, because their position is not entirely one of fantasy and not entirely without merit from the standpoint of reasonable discourse, I am willing to grant the name calling despite their inability to present some cause other than intelligent design as explicative of the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions." [Emphasis mine]

Yet you refuse to define 'organized matter' and specify the functions this matter performs. You also avoid explaining how self organizing systems that perform specific functions are different than your 'organized matter'.

I spent a great deal of time not all that long ago trying to get you to tell me how to determine if a given chunk of matter is organized or not, and what kind of function is 'specific'. I never did get an answer.

After watching the Chugabrew ball randomly bounce off the walls, all the while carefully avoiding my questions, I decided conversing with you is no different than conversing with a Turing testbot.

[RunningWolf]

Namecalling, juvenile insults, hurling false accusations, obfuscation = defining characteristics

Man you have that calibrated correct!

Welcome btw.

RW

[Oztrich Boy]

marker