Posted on 05/09/2005 12:52:08 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I'm sorry I have to correct you. I'm not a Christian. Although I believe in the Christian faith, I sing and write some Country Gospel, and my Mother was the paster in the Church (United Fellowship Christian Center), I don't call myself a Christian.
The word Christian is Latin for Christ like. And although I have tried to live my life as best I can to the teachings of Christians, I have never felt myself to be worthy of claiming myself to be Christ like. So I don't call myself a Christian.
Now that I've covered that question I have to say, Oh please..... now you accuse me of what? False witnessing? LOL I must have angered you by repeating that there is no proof "factual evidence" of darwins theory. But that there is proof "factual evidence" that one can create human life in one's own image just like the Bible said God did. LOL
The best way to end the ride on a merry go round is to jump off. It's late. And before I am accused of false witnessing again, LOL I'm jumping off this merry go round and getting myself off to bed.
Have a good one!
I know you're kidding, but don't forget: Maureen Dowd won a Pulitzer.
Indeed you did a little, because you repeatedly asserted a falsehood, presumably out of ignorance, though I note you slightly change your claim on this most recent repetition....
To say that there is no proof is true but irrelevant, because there is no proof of any explanatory theory in the natural sciences (the study of the physical universe).
To say there is no evidence for ToE is false, as I demonstrated with the URLs that I gave you. If you don't understand the evidence or its application that is your problem, not science's problem. The articles that I posted the URLs to are specifically designed to be comprehended by non-biologists.
Science concerns itself almost entirely with evidence and the ToE is supported with such an abundance of evidence as to be beyond serious challenge from within science (pending the discovery of contradictory evidence). There is lots of room for discussion about the details (scientists love a good argument), and we can never discount the idea that God just made it look as if evolution is true for mysterious reasons, but such an idea is essentially unscientific because by definition no evidence for or against it can ever be found.
Maureen Dowd won a Pulitzer? I only read her rants so I can laugh at her but usually can't make it past the first paragraph.
I have no idea what you are going on about but first off, I didn't change anything I said slightly or in any other way. I simply stated the same thing over and over and over again.
Unless you were talking about the fact that the Bible said that God created Adam in his own image and you said something about dust. The only thing I said about that was that the scientists took two flakes of skin to create a human egg = dust?
And then you use the tired old liberal dem tactic of claiming I asserted a falsehood presumably out of ignorance, when I did no such thing.
You're using the old liberal dem tricks of first attacking ones honesty and then attacking ones intelligence. Liberal dems always do that when they can't win an argument because they have no facts to back them up.
But anyway, just because more then one scientist speculates something to be true, that still doesn't make it true. It simply makes it their belief. They still have no proof. And they have been wrong more then they've been right for as long as scientists have been speculating.
And you that to say that there is no proof is true but irrelevant, because there is no proof of any explanatory theory in the natural sciences (the study of the physical universe).
True but irrelevant? LOL Irrelevant that scientists have no proof to back up their guess? LOL But we're still supposed to believe that what they suppose might be, could be true?
If people had listened to scientists I wouldn't be living in the United States because no one would have sailed out to sea. Remember, the popular belief of all the scientists of their time was that the world was flat. They all believed that if we were to sail out to sea we would fall off the edge and die. LOL
Their main argument against intelligent design was always no proof. Although they had no proof to back up their argument of evolution, still, none of them could imagine how God could have created Adam in his own image and Eve from Adams rib.
How ironic it is that they themselves, the scientific community, would give us proof of how God created both Adam and Eve. LOL I wonder how long it will take them to accept their own proof of intelligent design. LOL
That comes through loud and clear in all your posts.
... but first off, I didn't change anything I said slightly or in any other way.
No, you changed your statement about evolution from "you have no evidence" to "you have no proof". These are completely different statements.
I simply stated the same thing over and over and over again.
In other parts of your postings you have indeed done this, completely ignoring my counter arguments you just repeat your original argument again, as if I might abandon my counters... bizarre.
Unless you were talking about the fact that the Bible said that God created Adam in his own image and you said something about dust. The only thing I said about that was that the scientists took two flakes of skin to create a human egg = dust?
House dust is indeed commonly flakes of skin. Are you really saying that is the way God did it? Why use skin to make an egg when you are God?
And then you use the tired old liberal dem tactic of claiming I asserted a falsehood presumably out of ignorance, when I did no such thing.
You have repeatedly said in this thread that there is no evidence for evolution. THat is a falsehood, either through malice or ignorance. Take your pick.
You're using the old liberal dem tricks of first attacking ones honesty and then attacking ones intelligence. Liberal dems always do that when they can't win an argument because they have no facts to back them up.
My, I seem to be upsetting you too. At no time have I attacked your intelligence. (Speculating that you may be ignorant is not the same thing as saying you are stupid)
But anyway, just because more then one scientist speculates something to be true, that still doesn't make it true.
Some of that is true. Unfounded speculation, even by scientists, should be ignored. But you come out again with this "They have no proof" thing that shows you still haven't understood anything that I tell you about how science works. NOTHING in the natural sciences is ever proven, because scientists always work on the principal that tomorrow new evidence may appear that overturns established theory. The theories we have are the best that we can do. They fit the observed evidence (millions upon millions of observations in the case of ToE), they make successful predictions, there are conceivable observations that could falsify them.
It simply makes it their belief. They still have no proof.
But they do have evidence. There is a world of difference between a belief held through faith and a belief supported by evidence. When you have a belief through evidence you are open to the possibility of contradictory evidence altering your beliefs. In general religious beliefs are not subject to that.
And they have been wrong more then they've been right for as long as scientists have been speculating.
Kind of true, but science is converging on correctness. Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian mechanics *but* Newtonian mechanics still holds true in 99.99% of normal real-world cases.
And you that to say that there is no proof is true but irrelevant, because there is no proof of any explanatory theory in the natural sciences (the study of the physical universe). True but irrelevant? LOL Irrelevant that scientists have no proof to back up their guess? LOL But we're still supposed to believe that what they suppose might be, could be true?
Your amusement is unwarranted. And you slyly ignore all my points about *evidence* being the thing that counts. Scientific theories aren't "guesses". They fit the evidence. They make predictions about what new evidence might be found.
If people had listened to scientists I wouldn't be living in the United States because no one would have sailed out to sea. Remember, the popular belief of all the scientists of their time was that the world was flat. They all believed that if we were to sail out to sea we would fall off the edge and die. LOL
You repeat another common creationist lie that is often used in an ignorant attempt to discredit past scientists. You are rather good at repeating them. Scientists established that the earth is a sphere, and its size to a reasonable degree of accuracy well over 2000 years ago. Columbus was perfectly well aware of this, and his sole error was that of using a very small (and wrong) estimate of the size, since he hoped to sail to China which in reality would have been out of the question even if the Americas weren't in the way because his ships couldn't carry enough food and water to make the trip.
Their main argument against intelligent design was always no proof.
No it wasn't. Scientists aren't interested in proof, they are interested in evidence. The main argument against intelligent design is that it is unscientific, because it makes no successful predictions, and there is no observation that could be made that would disprove it. (scientists are very interested in disproof)
Although they had no proof to back up their argument of evolution, still, none of them could imagine how God could have created Adam in his own image and Eve from Adams rib.
You are just making this up. Since God can do anything we don't need to imagine how He did it. He could indeed just "poof" Adam into existence from dust, or from nothing at all like He created the universe. Your imagined reasons for why science rejects ID bear no relation to the real reasons why science rejects ID; they merely serve to illustrate your abysmal understanding of how science works.
How ironic it is that they themselves, the scientific community, would give us proof of how God created both Adam and Eve. LOL I wonder how long it will take them to accept their own proof of intelligent design. LOL
Once again, the ability or inability of scientists to do something says absolutely nothing about what God is capable of. Or do you really think that God is limited to doing what we are capable of?
Oh please, LOL stop with the innuendos that I'm just too ignorant to understand or I'm simply not telling the truth. LOL
But like I said before, it's typical of liberal dem's to attack one's intelligence and their honesty when the liberal dem has no proof to back up their argument.
It's also typical of the elitist liberal dem to think of themselves as being more intelligent then a lowly Republican.
But that's ok, I still try to help pull those elitist liberal dem's, who think they are smarter then the rest of us, in out of the rain. LOL
Have a good one! And God Bless!
I note your continued failure to put up any meaningful arguments against even one of my points; that has been pretty much a constant in our conversation. All you have left is to call me a lib dem, repeatedly, which is a falsehood just like your previous mindless chant of "you haven't got any evidence", and your bizarre assertion that 15th Century European scientists thought that the earth was flat.
Oh Lord, LOL I stated my position in my very first post. And it must have been a "very" meaningful argument or you wouldn't have stayed around trying to discredit it, me, my intelligence, my honesty for so long. LOL
I just kept stating that same position over and over and over and it remained the same post after post after post.
You wanted to dance but you didn't bring any music. You just kept trying to tell me what it might sound like and how dumb I am because I kept pointing out to you that you didn't bring any music. LOL
But the scientists who are making human eggs and proved cloning are making beautiful music, because one can no longer discredit the Bible.
Those who don't want to believe in the word of the Bible can hold their hands over their ears, stomp their feet, yell what ever they want. But they can't stop other's from hearing that most beautiful music.
Have a good one! And God Bless!
You wanted to dance but you didn't bring any music. You just kept trying to tell me what it might sound like and how dumb I am because I kept pointing out to you that you didn't bring any music. LOL
Presumably that means something to you.
Those who don't want to believe in the word of the Bible can hold their hands over their ears, stomp their feet, yell what ever they want. But they can't stop other's from hearing that most beautiful music.
And what about those who don't see any conflict between evolution and their Christian belief?
The very first post I made I stated known proven facts. Scientist have found out how to clone and have now created a human egg.
The Bible told us that God created Adam in his own image and then created Eve from Adams rib. Scientists have now proven for a fact that what was written in the Bible was in fact possible.
Non-believers can no longer argue that intelligent design was impossible. They all said it was impossible because they couldn't imagine that you could create a human in one's own image. Now, like it or not, Scientists have figured out how to do what God did so very long ago.
You can dance around and dance around all you want. But darwins therory still remains nothing more then speculation. No proff, no facts, and it doesn't matter how many scientists guess that something may have, might have, could have happened this way or that, when Intelligent design has already been proven by scientists.
I personally don't think it's right to play God but you know how scientists are, so I bet it won't be long before they have a baby completly created from egg to birth (Intelligent Design) from the scientific comunity some where in the world.
And as for the lib dem thing, I don't have to keep telling you that I realize who I'm dealing with. Your constant mantra of my supposedly not putting up any meaningful arguments against your merry go round posts is proof of who I'm dealing with. I don't have to keep reminding you that your slip is showing.
And as for my telling you that you wanted to dance but you didn't bring any music. That means that you want to argue the same tired old point over and over but there is no proof to back up your argument (music). And I keep telling you that you have no proof (music) but you keep telling me that guessing, could be's, might be's, maybe's are proof enough to make it true.
Not! LOL
Have a good one! And God Bless!
Scientists have indeed created eggs by scraping cells off human ovaries and bathing them in phenol red oestrogen.
The Bible told us that God created Adam in his own image and then created Eve from Adams rib. Scientists have now proven for a fact that what was written in the Bible was in fact possible.
Scientists didn't need to prove it. God is omnipotent, so everything is possible for God, including creating a complete man from dust. As an aside, I would guess that God *didn't* do it by scraping cells off a female's ovaries but I suppose He could have done it that way if you want to believe that. (He'd have had to create the female first, which would have been a bit self-defeating)
Non-believers can no longer argue that intelligent design was impossible. They all said it was impossible because they couldn't imagine that you could create a human in one's own image. Now, like it or not, Scientists have figured out how to do what God did so very long ago.
False. Scientists have never used that argument against intelligent design. Scientists reject intelligent design because there is no evidence that it happened, and because no successful predictions have been made by assuming intelligent design.
You can dance around and dance around all you want. But darwins therory still remains nothing more then speculation. No proff, no facts,...
Lots of facts, lots of evidence some of which I posted and you ignored, like you ignore the substance of pretty much everything that I post.
and it doesn't matter how many scientists guess that something may have, might have, could have happened this way or that, when Intelligent design has already been proven by scientists.
Scientists making an egg out of ovary cells does not prove ID. Nothing scientists do can ever prove or disprove ID since God is not limited to our capabilities.
I personally don't think it's right to play God but you know how scientists are, so I bet it won't be long before they have a baby completly created from egg to birth (Intelligent Design) from the scientific comunity some where in the world.
Possibly so. But it doesn't prove that God did it that way.
And as for the lib dem thing, I don't have to keep telling you that I realize who I'm dealing with. Your constant mantra of my supposedly not putting up any meaningful arguments against your merry go round posts is proof of who I'm dealing with. I don't have to keep reminding you that your slip is showing.
Ah, you return to that comforting lie again. Anyone who disagrees with you, and asks that you argue meaningfully rather than repeatedly trolling the same discredited arguments must be a lib dem.
And as for my telling you that you wanted to dance but you didn't bring any music. That means that you want to argue the same tired old point over and over but there is no proof to back up your argument (music). And I keep telling you that you have no proof (music) but you keep telling me that guessing, could be's, might be's, maybe's are proof enough to make it true.
No I don't. That is your wilful mischaracterisation of my argument. I say that evidence and predictions are what count. You keep banging on about proof, which science is not interested in.
Jack Vance wrote an SF novel, "The Languages of Pao" about how language might shape culture. An autocratic tyrant modernised his planet by creating different castes and giving them synthetic languages that they had to speak from birth. So the military caste gets a very dynamic action oriented language, full of words to describe different states of exultation and bravery; the science caste gets a subtle enquiry and precision oriented language; the trader caste gets a language organized towards deception and monetary gain... The civil service had to know several of the languages.
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.